g olf is an athletic activity enjoyed by people of all ages and skill levels. There are more than 55 million golfers around the world, and the number of participants is increasing worldwide. 9Because golf is not an intense activity, it is especially suitable for older people to stay active and improve their health. Among golf injuries, low back pain (LBP) is the most common complaint for t STuDY DeSign: Controlled laboratory study using a cross-sectional design.t oBJeCTiVeS: To examine the kinematics and kinetics of the trunk and the physical characteristics of trunk and hip in golfers with and without a history of low back pain (LBP).t BaCKgroUnD: Modified swing patterns and general exercises have been suggested for golfers with back pain. Yet we do not know what contributes to LBP in golfers. To create and validate a low back-specific exercise program to help prevent and improve back injuries in golfers, it may be valuable to understand the differences in biomechanical and physical characteristics of golfers with and without a history of LBP.t meThoDS: Sixteen male golfers with a history of LBP were matched by age and handicap with 16 male golfers without a history of LBP. All golfers underwent a biomechanical swing analysis, trunk and hip strength and flexibility assessment, spinal proprioception testing, and postural stability testing.t reSUlTS: The group with a history of LBP demonstrated significantly less trunk extension strength at 60°/s and left hip adduction strength, as well as limited trunk rotation angle toward the nonlead side. No significant differences were found in postural stability, trunk kinematics, and maximum spinal moments during the golf swing.t ConClUSion: Deficits observed in this study may affect a golfer's ability to overcome the spinal loads generated during the golf swing over time. Exercises for improving these physical deficits can be considered, although the cause-effect of LBP in golfers still cannot be determined.

No abstract

Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure. Objective: To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI. Setting: Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states. Design: Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR). Participants and Interventions: One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises. Results: The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P , 0.01). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models. Limitations: The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design. Conclusions: There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract