To examine the effect of prolonged standing on gluteus medius coactivation and to observe whether the changes in gluteus medius coactivation over time were related to the development of low back pain in elite female field hockey players.
Prospective cohort design.
Participants were 39 elite female field hockey players (14 with a history of low back pain). Before the prolonged stand, maximal hip abduction strength, side bridge hold endurance and hip abduction range of motion were measured bilaterally. Surface electromyography was collected from the gluteus medius for coactivation analysis during a prolonged stand for 70 min. Low back pain was rated every 10 min on a visual analogue scale.
Fourteen of 39 participants developed low back pain. The Time effect was significant for gluteus medius coactivation response (p = 0.003) and visual analogue scale score (p < 0.001). There were no significant group × time interactions. Yet athletes who developed pain had higher coactivation for the majority of the stand task.
While female field hockey players have high agonist-antagonist coactivation patterns during prolonged standing, stand task is a useful tool to predict low back pain occurrence in players with and without history of pain.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Physical Therapy in Sport
#722
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,407
of 277,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physical Therapy in Sport
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
