Citation: Boris G. Andryukov. Six decades of lateral flow immunoassay: from determining metabolic markers to diagnosing COVID-19[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 280-304. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020018
| [1] | Mattia Fortina, Aurelio Vittoria, Stefano Giannotti, Pasquale Biandolino, Gabriele Cevenini, Serafino Carta . Short time effects of a low-frequency, high intensity magnetic field in the treatment of chronic neck and low back pain. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 307-315. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022021 |
| [2] | Saleem Qureshi, Musarrat Iqbal, Azra Rafiq, Hamna Ahmed, Tooba Malik, Muhammad Nasir Kalam, Muhammad Abdullah, Qirtas Tauheed, Muhammad Daoud Butt . Dietary habits and physical activity patterns in relation to nutritional status among school-aged children in Pakistan: A cross-sectional study. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(3): 553-567. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023039 |
| [3] | Antonija Hrkać, Roberta Perković, Branko Krišto, Livia Puljak . Prevalence of spinal pain in a population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 790-804. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022053 |
| [4] | Eftychia Ferentinou, Ioannis Koutelekos, Evangelos Dousis, Eleni Evangelou, Despoina Pappa, Maria Theodoratou, Chrysoula Dafogianni . The relationship between childhood sleep, emotional intelligence and Body Mass Index in school aged children. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 77-90. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025006 |
| [5] | Christian E. Vazquez, Catherine Cubbin . Associations between breastfeeding duration and overweight/obese among children aged 5–10: a focus on racial/ethnic disparities in California. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 355-369. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.355 |
| [6] | Tyler C. Smith MS PhD, Besa Smith MPH PhD . Understanding the Early Signs of Chronic Disease by Investigating the Overlap of Mental Health Needs and Adolescent Obesity. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 487-500. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.487 |
| [7] | Simone K. Malik, Jerome Kouame, Mory Gbane, Madikiny Coulibaly, Michèle D. Ake, Odile Ake . Prevalence of abdominal obesity and its correlates among adults in a peri-urban population of West Africa. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(3): 334-344. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.3.334 |
| [8] | Maria Pia Riccio, Gennaro Catone, Rosamaria Siracusano, Luisa Occhiati, Pia Bernardo, Emilia Sarnataro, Giuseppina Corrado, Carmela Bravaccio . Vitamin D deficiency is not related to eating habits in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 792-803. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020061 |
| [9] | Yuki Sato, Reiko Suzuki, Michiko Shigihara, Chieko Suzuki . The effect of guardians' health literacy on the child's spending time at home: A cross-sectional study among Japanese schoolchildren. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 52-62. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023005 |
| [10] | Amna Salam Al-Wandi, Sarra Ibrahim Shorbagi . Sleep patterns and its relation to lifestyle habits: a study of secondary high school students in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 713-722. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020055 |
The scientific literature suggests that the prevalence of back pain is influenced by multiple factors such as behavioral, physical, psychosocial and genetic [1]. Thus, age, gender, sleep habits, physical activity level, anxiety and depression, heredity, and excessive screen time can be predictors of back pain [1]–[8]. Regrettably, back pain affects a representative portion of the world's adult population, especially in developing countries such as Brazil [9]. A cross-sectional study conducted with data from the 2013 National Health Survey, conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics in partnership with the Ministry of Health, brought interesting epidemiological data. This research was applied to 63.348 adults from private households in both urban and rural areas, in five geographic macro-regions, 27 federative states their capitals. These results pointed out that, in Brazil, chronic back pain was reported by 18.5% of adults, 15.5% in men and 21.1% in women [10]. Chronic back pain in the highly productive working age group impacted negatively on the country's economy [11]. In addition, it should be noted that this condition may also negatively affect the ability to perform activities of daily living [12].
In addition to the adult population, studies indicate that children and adolescents have also been affected by back pain [13]. Complaining of back pain is a serious public health problem that affects a large part of the world's population in the most varied age groups [1]–[3], including schoolchildren and adolescents. In a Danish study conducted by Skoffer [14], which evaluated 546 schoolchildren aged 14–17, it was found that 60% of students complained of low back pain in the last 12 months. Martinez-Crespo and collaborators [15], in investigating the prevalence of back pain in 887 schoolchildren in the City of Seville, Spain, found an even higher prevalence, in this case, 66% in the last year. In Brazilian students a similar phenomenon is observed. Noll and collaborators found that in 1720 schoolchildren aged 11 to 16 years living in the city of Teutonia, Rio Grande do Sul, 55% reported having had back pain in the last 3 months [16].
Although the prevalence of back pain is well described in the literature [1],[5]–[8], the factors involved in its genesis are not yet fully understood and, in some cases, are conflicting, especially in schoolchildren. It is also worth mentioning that most studies are limited to describing the prevalence of back pain in schoolchildren, leaving gaps about the frequency and intensity of reported pain, and often limited to only spine region. Thus, the aim of this study was to describe the frequency and intensity of back pain reported in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, as well as to verify the influence of physical activity level, nutritional status and screen habits (habits regarding the use of technological resources that have an electronic display such as cell phone, television, video game, computer and tablet) on the prevalence of pain, in Brazilian schoolchildren residing in the metropolitan region of Alto Tietê in São Paulo state.
The present research is a descriptive, cross-sectional study with primary data collection and sample for convenience. Data were collected during August and December 2017, during classes in the afternoon between 1 pm and 6 pm, in five state public schools in the cities of Itaquaquecetuba and Mogi das Cruzes, belonging to the metropolitan region of Alto Tietê in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The sample of the present study consisted of 577 schoolchildren of both sexes (female = 274, male = 303) aged 10 to 16 years, regularly enrolled in the 6th grade of elementary school. All procedures adopted in the research were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Mogi das Cruzes, (protocol: 2.459.458).
Only schoolchildren whose legal guardians signed the Informed Consent Form and who expressed the desire to participate in data collection were included in the study. In addition, to have the data considered in this research, it was necessary to be literate and not having physical and/or neurological disabilities that would prevent them from normally performing daily physical activities and using electronic devices such as television, cell phone, video game, tablet and computers.
The prevalence, intensity and frequency of pain was determined with the Back Pain Assessment Instrument (BPI) [17] showing good reproducibility and applicability in Brazilian adolescents [18]. The BPI is a questionnaire with multiple choice closed questions that enables the identification of pain in areas present in the posterior region of the body, including the cervical, thoracic and lumbar areas of the spine. With the application of the BPI, it was possible to obtain information regarding the region of the back pain, the intensity and its frequency, as well as to verify if the individuals complained of pain during the questionnaire application.
The habitual physical activity level was verified through the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C), which was designed for children aged 8 to 13 years and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescent (PAQ-A) for adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18 years [19]. Based on the answers to the questionnaires, it was possible to classify the students in (“Very Sedentary”, “Sedentary” = Physically inactive), (“Moderately Active”, “Active” and “Very Active” = Physically active).
Body weight and height were obtained using an anthropometric digital scale with a coupled stadiometer (Toledo Prix A 2098 PP), duly calibrated, with an accuracy of 100 grams and 0.1 centimeters, respectively. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated by dividing the body weight (kg) by the square value of the height (m), and its final value expressed in (kg/m2). In this way the students were classified as thinner, eutrophic, overweight or obese [20].
Screen habits (SH) were verified through a questionnaire previously structured by the researchers and it was composed of 10 closed and open questions (4 multiple choice questions and 6 essay questions). After being duly completed, it was possible to identify the most used types of screen, the time of use and also, the purpose that the students use of the technological resources described. In our study, we considered excessive screen time more than 2 hours a day [21], according to the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics [21].
The normality of the data was verified by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Height and level of physical activity showed normal distribution and were compared using the parametric student's t-test. However, age, weight, BMI and screen time did not present a normal distribution, being then compared using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test. Prevalence, intensity and frequency of back pain were compared between the sexes using the test of Chi-square with correction of Yates, when necessary. Factors associated with cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine pain were investigated with the multiple logistic regression test. The results were considered statistically significant only when p < 0.05. All analyzes were performed using Bioestat version 5.3 statistical software.
Table 1 showed the values of age, mass, height, BMI, daily TT and level of physical activity (PAQ-C score). The student's t-test revealed a difference between genders in relation to height and level of physical activity, the same was pointed out by the Mann-Whitney U test in relation to the variables of mass and BMI. In summary, male students presented lower height, mass and BMI, but a higher level of physical activity when compared to female schoolchildren (p ≤ 0.05).
| Continuous variables | Male (n = 303) |
Female (n = 274) |
p-value |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age (Years) | 11.95 (0.65) | 12.02 (0.74) | (U(39321.00); p = 0.27) |
| Weight (Kg) | 43.64 (11.80) | 47.20 (11.35) | (U(32738.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Height (m) | 1.51 (0.07) | 1.53 (0.07) | (T(-2.9146); p = 0.00)* |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 18.89 (4.12) | 18.89 (4.12) | (U(33513.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Daily ST (h) | 3.72 (1.65) | 3.92 (1.65) | (U(36869.50); p = 0.14) |
| Score PAQ-C | 2.70 (0.71) | 2.45(0.72) | (T(3.9088); p = 0.00)* |
Note: n = Number of students; SD = Standard Deviation; ST = Screen time; h = Hours; Kg = Kilograms; BMI = Body Mass Index; m = Meters; m2 = Height in meters squared; Score PAQ-C = Indicates in arbitrary unit the level of average physical activity predicted by the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children; p-value = value of significance; * = p ≤ 0.05 according student's T test or Mann-Whitney U test; # ST (♂ n = 296), and (♀ n = 268); # PAQ-C (♂ n = 251).
DownLoad:
CSV
Approximately 25% of students complained of back pain at the exact time of data collection, and the prevalence of this event was significantly higher in female students compared to male students (33.58% vs. 17.80%, p ≤ 0.01). Among the regions investigated, the one with the most complaints of pain by the students was cervical, around 30%, which, as well as the previously described variable (pain complaint at the time of data collection), was significantly higher in females compared to gender male (36.86% vs. 25.00%, p ≤ 0.05). Regarding the number of regions with pain reports (1, 2 or 3), we observed that most students complained of pain in a single region, almost 28%. This variable was significantly higher in female students compared to male students (22.94% vs. 34.32%) (Table 2).
| Categorical variables | Male (n = 292) |
Female (n = 268) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Pain complaint | 123 (42.12) | 161 (60.07) | (χ2(5.534); p = 0.01)* |
| Pain at the moment | 52 (17.80) | 90 (33.58) | (χ2(10.310); p = 0.00)* |
| Cervical pain | 73 (25.00) | 101 (36.86) | (χ2(5.113); p = 0.02)* |
| Thoracic spine pain | 69 (23.63) | 87 (31.75) | (χ2(2.747); p = 0.09) |
| Low back pain | 45 (15.41) | 62 (22.62) | (χ2(3.264); p = 0.07) |
| 1 region of the spine | 67 (22.94) | 92 (34.32) | (χ2(4.096); p = 0.04)* |
| 2 regions of the spine | 38 (13.01) | 43 (16.04) | (χ2(0.580); p = 0.44) |
| 3 regions of the spine | 13 (4.45) | 22 (8.20) | (χ2(2.397); p = 0.12) |
| Cervical pain | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Cervical pain mild | 44 (60.27) | 47 (46.53) | (χ2(0.749); p = 0.38) |
| Cervical pain medium | 22 (30.13) | 34 (33.66) | (χ2(0.039); p = 0.84) |
| Cervical pain Strong | 5 (6.84) | 16 (15.84) | (χ2(1.870); p = 0.17) |
| Cervical pain Unbearable | 2 (2.73) | 4 (3.96) | (χ2(0.000); p = 1.00) |
| 7x per week | 1 (1.36) | 7 (6.93) | (χ2(1.665); p = 0.19) |
| 4–6 x per week | 5 (6.84) | 6 (5.94) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.93) |
| 1–3x per week | 20 (27.39) | 30 (29.70) | (χ2(0.007); p = 0.93) |
| 1–4x per month | 21 (28.76) | 31 (30.69) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 1–4x per year | 26 (35.61) | 27 (26.73) | (χ2(0.570); p = 0.45) |
| Thoracic spine pain | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Thoracic spine pain mild | 38 (55.07) | 47 (54.02) | (χ2(0.004); p = 0.94) |
| Thoracic spine pain medium | 18 (26.08) | 22 (25.28) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.92) |
| Thoracic spine pain Strong | 9 (13.04) | 14 (16.09) | (χ2(0.055); p = 0.81) |
| Thoracic spine pain unbearable | 4 (5.79) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 7x per week | 4 (5.79) | 3 (3.44) | (χ2(1.583); p = 0.20) |
| 4–6 x per week | 6 (8.69) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.414); p = 0.51) |
| 1–3x per week | 21 (30.43) | 27 (31.03) | (χ2(0.012); p = 0.91) |
| 1–4x per month | 24 (34.78) | 33 (37.93) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 14 (20.28) | 20 (22.98) | (χ2(0.018); p = 0.89) |
| Low back pain | Male (n=45) |
Female (n=62) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Low back pain mild | 29 (64.44) | 29 (46.77) | (χ2(0.665); p = 0.41) |
| Low back pain medium | 8 (17.77) | 21 (33.87) | (χ2(1.446); p = 0.22) |
| Low back pain Strong | 5 (11.11) | 7 (11.29) | (χ2(0.080); p = 0.77) |
| Low back pain unbearable | 3 (6.66) | 5 (8.06) | (χ2(0.014); p = 0.90) |
| 7x per week | 1 (2.22) | 2 (3.22) | (χ2(0.085); p = 0.77) |
| 4–6 x per week | 4 (8.88) | 4 (6.45) | (χ2(0.005); p = 0.94) |
| 1–3x per week | 12 (26.66) | 20 (32.25) | (χ2(0.065); p = 0.79) |
| 1–4x per month | 17 (37.77) | 24 (38.70) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 11 (24.44) | 12 (19.35) | (χ2(0.076); p = 0.78) |
Note: n = Number of students; p-value = value of significance; * = p ≤ 0.05 according χ2 Chi-square test; (%) = Gender-proportional sampling value.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 49; Female = 67) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 24; Female = 34) | 0.27 | 1.46 | 0.74–2.90 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 0.48–1.74 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 51; Female = 79) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 22; Female = 22) | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.51–1.95 | 0.76 | 0.89 | 0.45–1.79 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 17; Female = 18) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 56; Female = 83) | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.44–2.10 | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.26–1.30 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 33; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 40; Female = 16) | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.05 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.08–11.20 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 48; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male =2 5; Female = 16) | 0.04* | 0.07 | 0.01–0.98 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.06–10.49 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 97) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 14; Female = 4) | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.04–6.88 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.05–13.93 |
| Video Game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 100) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 5; Female = 1) | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.01–2.29 | 0.94 | 120163.70 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 66; Female = 99) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 7; Female = 2) | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.03–6.85 | 0.85 | 0.72 | 0.02–23.72 |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 13) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 88) | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.23–1.81 | 0.10 | 2.57 | 0.83–7.92 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 7; Female = 20) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 66; Female = 81) | 0.91 | 19350.07 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.26 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 29) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 72) | 0.92 | 7066.97 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.01–2.45 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 72; Female = 101) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 55; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 14; Female = 29) | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.23–1.09 | 0.63 | 0.85 | 0.44–1.64 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 26; Female = 16) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 43; Female = 71) | 0.45 | 1.27 | 0.67–2.45 | 0.55 | 0.80 | 0.40–1.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 19; Female = 9) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 50; Female = 78) | 0.22 | 0.63 | 0.31–1.32 | 0.18 | 1.80 | 0.75–4.33 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 32; Female = 19) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 37; Female = 68) | 0.92 | 11896.58 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 29770.46 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 54; Female = 74) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 15; Female = 13) | 0.91 | 19994.20 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 34903.44 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 83) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 4) | 0.91 | 27398.27 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 30448.01 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.93 | 2567.45 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 63; Female = 86) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 6; Female = 1) | 0.91 | 32065.66 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 35288.55 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 11) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 63; Female = 76) | 0.73 | 1.19 | 0.42–3.42 | 0.89 | 1.07 | 0.37–3.15 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 11; Female = 31) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 58; Female = 56) | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.03–4.56 | 0.91 | 31102.84 | 0.00-Infinity |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 56) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 31) | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.03–6.15 | 0.90 | 51141.99 | 0.00–Infinity |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical Variables (cases) | Male (n = 45) |
Female (n = 62) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 33; Female = 44) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 12; Female = 18) | 0.64 | 0.80 | 0.33–2.00 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.28–1.35 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 15; Female = 18) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 30; Female = 44) | 0.78 | 1.11 | 0.51–2.47 | 0.15 | 1.71 | 0.81–3.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 11; Female = 10) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 34; Female = 52) | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.29–1.75 | 0.68 | 0.82 | 0.32–2.11 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 27; Female = 52) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 18; Female = 10) | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.02–2.37 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.07–11.61 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 7) | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.35 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.03–5.72 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 1) | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.03–5.25 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.01–6.97 |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male =4 3; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.00–1.77 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 45; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 0; Female = 1) | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.00–2.45 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 4; Female = 8) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 41; Female = 54) | 0.03* | 0.32 | 0.12–0.91 | 0.66 | 0.77 | 0.25–2.43 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 10; Female = 24) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 35; Female = 38) | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.18 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.04–7.93 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 39) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 23) | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.02–4.86 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.07–12.68 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 43; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.64 | 0.42 | 0.01–15.91 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
From the answers provided to the BPI we conclude that, in the 3 regions investigated (cervical, thoracic and lumbar), mild pain, approximately 54%, was the most reported. Finally, there was not difference between male and female groups for the possible pain classifications (mild, medium, strong and unbearable) (p > 0.05) (Table 2).
In the cervical region the frequency of most reported pain was 1–4 times a year (around 31%). In the thoracic region, the frequency of pain most reported by schoolchildren was 1–4 times a month (almost 36%), as was the lumbar region (approximately 38%). Regarding the possible frequency ratings suggested by the IDC (7x per week, 4–6x per week, 1–3x per week, 1–4x per month, 1–4x per year), we found no significant difference between sexes (p > 0.05) (Table 2).
The use of television influenced by 7% the prevalence of cervical pain in male students (OR = 0.0716; p = 0.0480) (Table 3) and that the use of more than one screen increased the occurrence of low back pain by 32% (OR = 0.3272; p = 0.0329) (Table 5). For the other variables no significant association was observed (p > 0.05).
Swain and collaborators [22] estimated the prevalence of back pain in adolescents from 28 countries aged 9 to 17 years. It was observed that the average worldwide prevalence of back pain in adolescents was 37%, with Poland and the Czech Republic having the lowest and highest rates (27.7% vs. 50.5%), respectively. More recently, in a systematic review study conducted by Calvo-Muñoz and collaborators [23] analyzed the risk factors for low back pain in 137.877 individuals (between 9 and 16 years) from 5 continents, it was observed that prevalence of low back pain varied between 15.25% and 38.98% in the world population. Despite this, no consistent data were found, in this population, on the factors associated with the prevalence of pain. These results reinforces the complexity of the factors involved in the genesis of back pain in childhood. Corroborating these studies, we also found a high prevalence of pain complaints in our students reporting back pain at least once in the last year (around 51%) and more than 25% complained of pain during the test application. It is noteworthy that, in both cases, female students pain complaints were significantly higher when compared to male students (60.07% vs. 42.12%). Similar results were obtained in a longitudinal study conducted by Noll and collaborators in Brazilian schoolchildren [24]. Similarly they found a higher prevalence of back pain in female students. It is possible to speculate, therefore, that hormonal and biochemical mechanisms may interfere negatively in the greater pain reported by female students [25]. Moreover, this points to a complexity involved in the genesis of back pain that, despite being well described, is multifactorial, and maybe influenced by sex [1]–[8].
Our study did not merely describe the prevalence of back pain in schoolchildren, nor did we restrict ourselves to investigating this phenomenon in just one region of the spine, as is usually the case [26]. Using BPI, it was possible to obtain relevant information about this phenomenon. Regarding the pain site, we found that the cervical region is the most affected (30.93%) being more prevalent in females, followed by the thoracic (27.69%) and lumbar (19.01%) regions, which was similar between males and females. Another interesting fact is that among the students who reported back pain, 20.85% of them complain of pain in more than one spinal region. Taken together, these results point to the need for future research with schoolchildren investigating back pain complaints in all spinal regions (cervical, thoracic and lumbar) and not just the lower back, as many studies have prioritized [3],[5],[12],[27],[28].
Two other interesting points were the frequency and prevalence of back pain for each region of the spine. For the cervical region the frequency of most reported pain was 1–4 times a year (approximately 31%). In the thoracic region, the frequency of pain most reported by schoolchildren was 1–4 times a month (almost 36%), as was the lumbar region (around 38%). Regarding the possible frequency ratings suggested by the BPI (7x per week, 4–6x per week, 1–3x per week, 1–4x per month, 1–4x per year), there was no significant difference between genders for any of the regions investigated (p > 0.05). Regarding the frequency of back pain reported by schoolchildren, some studies that also investigated this variable deserve to be pointed out. Skoffer [14] found in Danish schoolchildren aged 14–17 that 60% of students have complained of back pain in the last 12 months. Martinez-Crespo and collaborators [15] found an even higher prevalence (66%) of schoolchildren in Spain. Another highly representative study conducted by Noll and collaborators[16] found that in 1720 Brazilian schoolchildren aged 11 to 16 years living in the city of Teutonia, Rio Grande do Sul, 55% reported having had back pain in the last 3 months. These studies points out to variations in the frequency of back pain reported by schoolchildren. Thus, future studies should also focus on multiple factors that may interfere with the increase of this frequency.
In an attempt to elucidate the multiple factors associated with the etiology of back pain in schoolchildren, we analyzed the influence of physical activity level, nutritional status and screen habits on the prevalence of pain in the thoracic and lumbar cervical regions. Among the variables analyzed, we found that the use of television influences cervical pain in 7% in male students and that students who used more than one technological resource (television, computer, video game, tablet or cell phone) in their habits daily, where 32% were more prone to low back pain. This is likely to be due to the excessive amount of time students sit in positions (sitting or lying down) that overload the spine [29]. It is also worth remembering that besides the leisure time, students are most of the time seated in chairs and tables in classrooms almost always disregarding their anthropometric characteristics, thus making school furnitures inappropriate for use [30]. If preventive measures are not taken, back pain may negatively influence the quality of life of children and adolescents [31], including school performance [32]. It is therefore crucial that new research and preventive interventions such as Postural Education programs [33],[34] be carried out, especially in adolescence, an extremely critical period in the intensification of back pain. In addition, if left untreated during childhood, back pain may last into adulthood [22].
Our study has some limitations. For example, although this study has a moderate sample size, in this case, 577 (female = 274, male = 303), it was a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample. Thus, the results we obtained do not allow generalization to the entire population of Brazilian schoolchildren. In addition, our study did not consider other important variables that may also be associated with the prevalence of back pain, such as posture when sitting down during classes, weight of the backpack in which students transported school materials and socioeconomic factors. Lastly, some logistic regression results showed large confidence interval, which indicate a large error of estimation. Hence, the readers should interpret these results with cautions.
Female students were the most affected by back pain complain, especially in the cervical region. Only in males, we identified factors associated with the prevalence of back pain as it was the negative association television cervical pain the use of more than one screen predisposing to the occurrence of low back pain.
| [1] |
Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, et al. (2010) World health organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLOS Med 12: e1001923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923
|
| [2] |
Byzova NA, Vinogradova SV, Porotikova EV, et al. (2018) Lateral flow immunoassay for rapid detection of grapevine leafroll-associated virus. Biosensors (Basel) 8: E111. doi: 10.3390/bios8040111
|
| [3] |
Anfossi L, Di Nardo F, Cavalera S, et al. (2018) Multiplex lateral flow immunoassay: an overview of strategies towards high-throughput point-of-need testing. Biosensors (Basel) 9: E2. doi: 10.3390/bios9010002
|
| [4] |
Kim H, Chung DR, Kang M (2019) A new point-of-care test for the diagnosis of infectious diseases based on multiplex lateral flow immunoassays. The Analyst 144: 2460-2466. doi: 10.1039/C8AN02295J
|
| [5] | World Health Organization (2010) Global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Med 12: e1001923. |
| [6] |
Urusov AE, Zherdev AV, Dzantiev BB (2019) Towards lateral flow quantitative assays: detection approaches. Biosensors (Basel) 9: 89. doi: 10.3390/bios9030089
|
| [7] |
Cheng N, Song Y, Zeinhom MM, et al. (2017) Nanozyme-mediated dual immunoassay integrated with smartphone for use in simultaneous detection of pathogens. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9: 40671-40680. doi: 10.1021/acsami.7b12734
|
| [8] |
Zarei M (2018) Infectious pathogens meet point-of-care diagnostics. Biosens Bioelectron 106: 193-203. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2018.02.007
|
| [9] |
Yalow RS, Berson SA (1960) Immunoassay of endogenous plasma insulin in man. J Clin Invest 39: 1157-1175. doi: 10.1172/JCI104130
|
| [10] |
Mak WC, Beni V, Turner APF (2016) Lateral-flow technology: From visual to instrumental. Trends Analyt Chem 79: 297-305. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2015.10.017
|
| [11] |
McPartlin DA, O'Kennedy RJ (2014) Point-of-care diagnostics, a major opportunity for change in traditional diagnostic approaches: Potential and limitations. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 14: 979-998. doi: 10.1586/14737159.2014.960516
|
| [12] |
Fu X, Wen J, Li J, et al. (2019) Highly sensitive detection of prostate cancer specific PCA3 mimic DNA using SERS-based competitive lateral flow assay. Nanoscale 11: 15530-15536. doi: 10.1039/C9NR04864B
|
| [13] |
Zhao Y, Wang HR, Zhang PP, et al. (2016) Rapid multiplex detection of 10 foodborne pathogens with an up-converting phosphor technology-based 10-channel lateral flow assay. Sci Rep 6: 21342. doi: 10.1038/srep21342
|
| [14] |
Sastre P, Gallardo C, Monedero A, et al. (2016) Development of a novel lateral flow assay for detection of African swine fever in blood. BMC Vet Res 12: 206. doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0831-4
|
| [15] |
Jones D, Glogowska M, Locock L, et al. (2016) Embedding new technologies in practice–a normalization process theory study of point of care testing. BMC Health Serv Res 16: 591. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1834-3
|
| [16] |
Kozel TR, Burnham-Marusich AR (2017) Point-of-care testing for infectious diseases: past, present, and future. J Clin Microb 55: 2313-2320. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00476-17
|
| [17] |
Kim C, Yoo YK, Han SI, et al. (2017) Battery operated preconcentration-assisted lateral flow assay. Lab Chip 17: 2451-2458. doi: 10.1039/C7LC00036G
|
| [18] |
Kim H, Chung DR, Kang M (2019) A new point-of-care test for the diagnosis of infectious diseases based on multiplex lateral flow immunoassays. Analyst 144: 2460-2466. doi: 10.1039/C8AN02295J
|
| [19] |
Gitonga LK, Boru WG, Kwena A, et al. (2017) Point of care testing evaluation of lateral flow immunoassay for diagnosis of cryptococcus meningitis in HIV-positive patients at an urban hospital in Nairobi, Kenya, 2017. BMC Res Notes 12: 797. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4829-4
|
| [20] |
Kumar S, Bhushan P, Krishna V, et al. (2018) Tapered lateral flow immunoassay-based point-of-care diagnostic device for ultrasensitive colorimetric detection of dengue NS1. Biomicrofluidics 12: 034104. doi: 10.1063/1.5035113
|
| [21] |
Anfossi L, Di Nardo F, Cavalera S, et al. (2018) Multiplex lateral flow immunoassay: an overview of strategies towards high-throughput point-of-need testing. Biosensors (Basel) 9: E2. doi: 10.3390/bios9010002
|
| [22] |
Banerjee R, Jaiswal A (2018) Recent advances in nanoparticle-based lateral flow immunoassay as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for infectious agents and diseases. Analyst 143: 1970-1996. doi: 10.1039/C8AN00307F
|
| [23] |
Safenkova IV, Panferov VG, Panferova NA, et al. (2019) Alarm lateral flow immunoassay for detection of the total infection caused by the five viruses. Talanta 95: 739-744. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.12.004
|
| [24] |
Zhao Y, Zhang Q, Meng Q, et al. (2017) Quantum dots-based lateral flow immunoassay combined with image analysis for semiquantitative detection of IgE antibody to mite. Int J Nanomedicine 12: 4805-4812. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S134539
|
| [25] |
Jørgensen CS, Uldum SA, Sørensen JF, et al. (2015) Evaluation of a new lateral flow test for detection of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila urinary antigen. J Microbiol Methods 116: 33-36. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.06.014
|
| [26] |
Rohrman BA, Leautaud V, Molyneux E, et al. (2012) A lateral flow assay for quantitative detection of amplified HIV-1 RNA. PLoS One 7: e45611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045611
|
| [27] |
Boisen ML, Oottamasathien D, Jones AB, et al. (2015) Development of prototype filovirus recombinant antigen immunoassays. J Infect Dis 212: 359-367. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv353
|
| [28] |
Nielsen K, Yu WL, Kelly L, et al. (2008) Development of a lateral flow assay for rapid detection of bovine antibody to Anaplasma marginale. J Immunoassay Immunochem 29: 10-18. doi: 10.1080/15321810701734693
|
| [29] |
Kamphee H, Chaiprasert A, Prammananan T, et al. (2015) Rapid molecular detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis by PCR-nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassay. PLos One 10: e0137791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137791
|
| [30] |
Helfmann J, Netz UJ (2015) Sensors in diagnostics and monitoring. Photonics Lasers Med 4: 36-42. doi: 10.1515/plm-2015-0012
|
| [31] |
You M, Lin M, Gong Y, et al. (2017) Household fluorescent lateral flow strip platform for sensitive and quantitative prognosis of heart failure using dual-color upconversion nanoparticles. ACS Nano 11: 6261-6270. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02466
|
| [32] |
Pilavaki E, Demosthenous A (2017) Optimized Lateral Flow Immunoassay Reader for the Detection of Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries. Sensors (Basel) 17: E2673. doi: 10.3390/s17112673
|
| [33] |
Kim C, Yoo YK, Han SI, et al. (2017) Battery operated preconcentration-assisted lateral flow assay. Lab Chip 17: 2451-2458. doi: 10.1039/C7LC00036G
|
| [34] |
Naidoo N, Ghai M, Moodley K, et al. (2017) Modified RS-LAMP assay and use of lateral flow devices for rapid detection of Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli. Lett Appl Microbiol 65: 496-503. doi: 10.1111/lam.12799
|
| [35] |
Xiao W, Huang C, Xu F, et al. (2018) A simple and compact smartphone-based device for the quantitative readout of colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassay strips. Sens Actuators B Chem 266: 63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.03.110
|
| [36] |
Nelis D, Bura L, Zhao Y, et al. (2019) The Efficiency of Color Space Channels to Quantify Color and Color Intensity Change in Liquids, pH Strips, and Lateral Flow Assays with Smartphones. Sensors (Basel) 19: E5104. doi: 10.3390/s19235104
|
| [37] |
Schwenke KU, Spiehl D, Krauße M, et al. (2019) Analysis of free chlorine in aqueous solution at very low concentration with lateral flow tests. Sci Rep 9: 17212. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53687-0
|
| [38] |
Borges M, Araújo J (2019) False-negative result of serum cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay in an HIV-infected patient with culture-proven cryptococcaemia. Med Mycol Case Rep 26: 64-66. doi: 10.1016/j.mmcr.2019.10.009
|
| [39] |
Foysal KH, Seo SE, Kim MJ, et al. (2018) Analyte Quantity Detection from Lateral Flow Assay Using a Smartphone. Sensors (Basel) 19: E4812. doi: 10.3390/s19214812
|
| [40] |
Romeo A, Leunga T, Sánchez S (2016) Smart biosensors for multiplexed and fully integrated point-of-care diagnostics. Lab Chip 16: 1957-1961. doi: 10.1039/C6LC90046A
|
| [41] |
Lee S, Mehta S, Erickson D (2016) Two-Color Lateral Flow Assay for Multiplex Detection of Causative Agents Behind Acute Febrile Illnesses. Anal Chem 88: 8359-8363. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01828
|
| [42] |
Yen CW, de Puig H, Tam JO, et al. (2015) Multicolored silver nanoparticles for multiplexed disease diagnostics: distinguishing dengue, yellow fever, and Ebola viruses. Lab Chip 5: 1638-1641. doi: 10.1039/C5LC00055F
|
| [43] |
Edwards KA, Korff R, Baeumner AJ (2017) Liposome-Enhanced Lateral-Flow Assays for Clinical Analyses. Methods Mol Biol 1571: 407-434. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6848-0_25
|
| [44] |
Koczula K, Gallotta A (2016) Lateral flow assays. Essays Biochem 60: 111-120. doi: 10.1042/EBC20150012
|
| [45] | Guo C, Zhong LL, Yi HL, et al. (2016) Clinical value of fluorescence lateral flow immunoassay in diagnosis of influenza A in children. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 18: 1272-1276. |
| [46] |
Berger P, Sturgeon C (2014) Pregnancy testing with hCG-future prospects. Trends Endocrinol. Metab 25: 637-648. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2014.08.004
|
| [47] |
Lu F, Wang KH, Lin Y (2005) Rapid, quantitative and sensitive immunochromatographic assay based on stripping voltammetric detection of a metal ion label. Analyst 130: 1513-1517. doi: 10.1039/b507682j
|
| [48] |
Campbell JP, Heaney JL, Shemar M, et al. (2017) Development of a rapid and quantitative lateral flow assay for the simultaneous measurement of serum κ and λ immunoglobulin free light chains (FLC): inception of a new near-patient FLC screening tool. Clin Chem Lab Med 55: 424-434. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2016-0194
|
| [49] |
Pilavaki E, Demosthenous A (2017) Optimized lateral flow immunoassay reader for the detection of infectious diseases in developing countries. Sensors (Basel) 17: E2673. doi: 10.3390/s17112673
|
| [50] |
Hsieh HV, Dantzler JL, Weigl BH, et al. (2017) Analytical tools to improve optimization procedures for lateral flow assays. Diagnostics (Basel) 7: E29. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics7020029
|
| [51] |
Tran TV, Nguyen BV, Nguyen TTP, et al. (2019) Development of a highly sensitive magneto-enzyme lateral flow immunoassay for dengue NS1 detection. PeerJ 7: e7779. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7779
|
| [52] |
Chaterji S, Allen JC, Chow A, et al. (2011) Evaluation of the NS1 rapid test and the WHO dengue classification schemes for use as bedside diagnosis of acute dengue fever in adults. Am J Trop Med Hyg 84: 224-228. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0316
|
| [53] |
Rong Z, Wang Q, Sun N, et al. (2019) Smartphone-based fluorescent lateral flow immunoassay platform for highly sensitive point-of-care detection of Zika virus nonstructural protein 1. Anal Chim Acta 1055: 140-147. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.12.043
|
| [54] | Kosasih H, Widjaja S, Surya E, et al. (2012) Evaluation of two IgM rapid immunochromatographic tests during circulation of Asian lineage chikungunya virus. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 43: 55-61. |
| [55] |
Escadafal C, Faye O, Sall AA, et al. (2014) Rapid molecular assays for the detection of yellow fever virus in low-resource settings. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8: e2730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002730
|
| [56] |
Wonderly B, Jones S, Gatton ML, et al. (2019) Comparative performance of four rapid Ebola antigen-detection lateral flow immunoassays during the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. PLoS One 14: e0212113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212113
|
| [57] |
Si J, Li J, Zhang L, et al. (2019) A signal amplification system on a lateral flow immunoassay detecting for hepatitis e-antigen in human blood samples. J Med Virol 91: 1301-1306. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25452
|
| [58] |
Nakagiri I, Tasaka T, Okai M, et al. (2019) Screening for human immunodeficiency virus using a newly developed fourth generation lateral flow immunochromatography assay. J Virol Methods 274: 113746. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113746
|
| [59] |
Karaman E, Ilkit M, Kuşçu F (2019) Identification of Cryptococcus antigen in human immunodeficiency virus-positive Turkish patients by using the Dynamiker® lateral flow assay. Mycoses 62: 961-968. doi: 10.1111/myc.12969
|
| [60] |
Morioka K, Fukai K, Yosihda K, et al. (2015) Development and evaluation of a rapid antigen detection and serotyping lateral flow antigen detection system for foot-and-mouth disease virus. PLoS ONE 10: e0134931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134931
|
| [61] |
Wang C, Wang C, Wang X, et al. (2019) Magnetic SERS Strip for Sensitive and Simultaneous Detection of Respiratory Viruses. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 11: 19495-19505. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b03920
|
| [62] |
El-Tholoth M, Branavan M, Naveenathayalan A, et al. (2019) Recombinase polymerase amplification-nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassays for Newcastle disease virus and infectious bronchitis virus detection. Mol Biol Rep 46: 6391-6397. doi: 10.1007/s11033-019-05085-y
|
| [63] |
Huang YH, Yu KY, Huang SP, et al. (2020) Development of a Nucleic Acid Lateral Flow Immunoassay for the Detection of Human Polyomavirus BK. Diagnostics (Basel) 10: E403. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10060403
|
| [64] |
Salminen T, Knuutila A, Barkoff AM, et al. (2018) A rapid lateral flow immunoassay for serological diagnosis of pertussis. Vaccine 36: 1429-1434. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.064
|
| [65] |
Hwang J, Lee S, Choo J (2016) Application of a SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay strip for the rapid and sensitive detection of staphylococcal enterotoxin B. Nanoscale 8: 11418-11425. doi: 10.1039/C5NR07243C
|
| [66] |
Eryılmaz M, Acar Soykut E, Çetin D, et al. (2019) -based rapid assay for sensitive detection of Group A Streptococcus by evaluation of the swab sampling technique. Analyst 144: 3573-3580. doi: 10.1039/C9AN00173E
|
| [67] |
Prentice KW, DePalma L, Ramage JG, et al. (2019) Comprehensive Laboratory Evaluation of a Lateral Flow Assay for the Detection of Yersinia pestis. Health Secur 17: 439-453. doi: 10.1089/hs.2019.0094
|
| [68] |
Wang J, Katani R, Li L, et al. (2016) Rapid detection of Escherichia coli O157 and shiga toxins by lateral flow immunoassays. Toxins 8: 92. doi: 10.3390/toxins8040092
|
| [69] |
Wu Z (2019) Simultaneous detection of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium by a SERS-Based lateral flow immunochromatographic assay. Food Anal Methods 12: 1086-1091. doi: 10.1007/s12161-019-01444-4
|
| [70] |
El-Shabrawi M, El-Aziz NA, El-Adly TZ, et al. (2018) Stool antigen detection versus 13C-urea breath test for non-invasive diagnosis of pediatric Helicobacter pylori infection in a limited resource setting. Arch Med Sci 14: 69-73. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2016.61031
|
| [71] |
Machiesky L, Côté O, Kirkegaard LH, et al. (2019) A rapid lateral flow immunoassay for identity testing of biotherapeutics. J Immunol Methods 474: 112666. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2019.112666
|
| [72] |
Anfossi L, Di Nardo F, Cavalera S, et al. (2018) Multiplex Lateral Flow Immunoassay: An Overview of Strategies towards High-throughput Point-of-Need Testing. Biosensors (Basel) 9: 2. doi: 10.3390/bios9010002
|
| [73] |
Nouvellet P, Garske T, Mills HL, et al. (2015) The role of rapid diagnostics in managing Ebola epidemics. Nature 528: S109-S116. doi: 10.1038/nature16041
|
| [74] |
Hassan AHA, Bergua JF, Morales-Narváez E, et al. (2019) Validity of a single antibody-based lateral flow immunoassay depending on graphene oxide for highly sensitive determination of E. coli O157:H7 in minced beef and river water. Food Chem 297: 124965. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.124965
|
| [75] | Lai CC, Wang CY, Ko WC (2020) In vitro diagnostics of coronavirus disease 2019: Technologies and application. J Microbiol Immunol Infect . |
| [76] |
Askim JR, Suslick KS (2015) Hand-held reader for colorimetric sensor arrays. Anal. Chem 87: 7810-7816. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01499
|
| [77] |
Liu J, Geng Z, Fan Z, et al. (2019) Point-of-care testing based on smartphone: The current state-of-the-art (2017–2018). Biosens Bioelectron 132: 17-37. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2019.01.068
|
| [78] |
You M, Lin M, Gong Y, et al. (2017) Household fluorescent lateral flow strip platform for sensitive and quantitative prognosis of heart failure using dual-color upconversion nanoparticles. ACS Nano 11: 6261-6270. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02466
|
| [79] |
Xiao W, Huang C, Xu F, et al. (2018) A simple and compact smartphone-based device for the quantitative readout of colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassay strips. Sens Actuators B Chem 266: 63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2018.03.110
|
| [80] |
Saisin L, Amarit R, Somboonkaew A, et al. (2020) Significant sensitivity improvement for camera-based lateral flow immunoassay readers. Sensors 18: 4026. doi: 10.3390/s18114026
|
| [81] |
Nsabimana AP, Uzabakiriho B, Kagabo DM, et al. (2018) Bringing Real-Time Geospatial Precision to HIV Surveillance Through Smartphones: Feasibility Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 4: e11203. doi: 10.2196/11203
|
| [82] |
Gong Y, Zheng Y, Jin B, et al. (2019) A portable and universal upcon version nanoparticle-based lateral flow assay platform for point-of-care testing. Talanta 201: 126-133. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2019.03.105
|
| [83] |
Petrosillo N, Viceconte G, Ergonul O, et al. (2020) COVID-19, SARS and MERS: are they closely related? Clin Microbiol Infect 26: 729-734. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.03.026
|
| [84] |
Pfefferle S, Reucher S, Nörz D, et al. (2020) Evaluation of a quantitative RT-PCR assay for the detection of the emerging coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 using a high throughput system. Euro Surveill 25: 2000152. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.9.2000152
|
| [85] |
Chu DKW, Pan Y, Cheng SMS, et al. (2020) Molecular diagnosis of a novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) causing an outbreak of pneumonia. Clin Chem 66: 549-555. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa029
|
| [86] |
Jo S, Kim S, Shin DH, et al. (2020) Inhibition of SARS-CoV 3CL protease by flavonoids. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem 35: 145-151. doi: 10.1080/14756366.2019.1690480
|
| [87] |
Yip CC, Ho CC, Chan JF, et al. (2020) Development of a Novel, Genome Subtraction-Derived, SARS-CoV-2-Specific COVID-19-nsp2 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay and Its Evaluation Using Clinical Specimens. Int J Mol Sci 21: 2574. doi: 10.3390/ijms21072574
|
| [88] | Wu JL, Tseng WP, Lin CH, et al. (2020) Four point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for diagnosis of COVID-19 and for assessing dynamics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2. J Infect . |
| [89] |
Lu F, Wang KH, Lin Y (2005) Rapid, quantitative and sensitive immunochromatographic assay based on stripping voltammetric detection of a metal ion label. Analyst 130: 1513-1517. doi: 10.1039/b507682j
|
| [90] | Zhang Y, Kong H, Liu X, et al. (2018) Quantum dot-based lateral-flow immunoassay for rapid detection of rhein using specific egg yolk antibodies. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 46: 1685-1693. |
| [91] |
Liu Y, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, et al. (2020) The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med 27: taaa021. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa021
|
| [92] |
Chen Y, Chan KH, Hong C, et al. (2016) A highly specific rapid antigen detection assay for on-site diagnosis of MERS. J Infect 73: 82-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.04.014
|
| [93] |
Bhadra S, Jiang YS, Kumar MR, et al. (2015) Real-time sequence-validated loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for detection of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). PLoS One 10: e0123126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123126
|
| [94] |
Pallesen J, Wang N, Corbett KS, et al. (2017) Immunogenicity and structures of a rationally designed prefusion MERS-CoV spike antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: E7348-E7357. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707304114
|
| [95] |
Malik YS, Sircar S, Bhat S, et al. (2020) Emerging novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-current scenario, evolutionary perspective based on genome analysis and recent developments. Vet Q 40: 68-76. doi: 10.1080/01652176.2020.1727993
|
| [96] | Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. (2020) Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 25: 2000045. |
| [97] |
Wu A, Peng Y, Huang B, et al. (2020) Genome Composition and Divergence of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Originating in China. Cell Host Microbe 27: 325-328. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.02.001
|
| [98] |
Chen Z, Zhang Z, Zhai X, et al. (2020) Rapid and sensitive detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, using lanthanide-doped nanoparticles-based lateral flow immunoassay. Anal Chem 92: 7226-7231. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00784
|
| [99] |
Li YC, Bai WZ, Hashikawa T (2020) The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2 may play a role in the respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol 92: 552-555. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25728
|
| [100] |
Huang WE, Lim B, Hsu CC, et al. (2020) RT-LAMP for rapid diagnosis of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Microb Biotechnol 13: 950-961. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.13586
|
| [101] |
Nguyen T, Duong Bang D, Wolff A (2020) Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): paving the road for rapid detection and point-of-care ciagnostics. Micromachines (Basel) 11: 306. doi: 10.3390/mi11030306
|
| [102] |
Kashir J, Yaqinuddin A (2020) Loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays as a rapid diagnostic for COVID-19. Med Hypotheses 141: 109786. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109786
|
| [103] |
Koch T, Dahlke C, Fathi A, et al. (2020) Safety and immunogenicity of a modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector vaccine candidate for Middle East respiratory syndrome: an open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 20: 827-838. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30248-6
|
| [104] |
Zhu FC, Li YH, Guan XH, et al. (2020) Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial. Lancet 395: 1845-1854. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31208-3
|
| [105] |
Alkan F, Ozkul A, Bilge-Dagalp S, et al. (2011) The detection and genetic characterization based on the S1 gene region of BCoVs from respiratory and enteric infections in Turkey. Transbound Emerg Dis 58: 179-185. doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2010.01194.x
|
| [106] |
Pradhan SK, Kamble NM, Pillai AS, et al. (2014) Recombinant nucleocapsid protein based single serum dilution ELISA for the detection of antibodies to infectious bronchitis virus in poultry. J Virol Methods 209: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2014.08.015
|
| [107] |
Montesinos I, Gruson D, Kabamba B, et al. (2020) Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. J Clin Virol 128: 104413. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104413
|
| [108] | Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, et al. (2020) Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6: CD013652. |
| [109] | Wen T, Huang C, Shi FJ, et al. (2020) Development of a lateral flow immunoassay strip for rapid detection of IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 virus. Analyst 10: 1039. |
| [110] |
Wang Y, Hou Y, Li H, et al. (2019) A SERS-based lateral flow assay for the stroke biomarker S100-β. Mikrochim Acta 186: 548. doi: 10.1007/s00604-019-3634-z
|
| [111] |
Nicol T, Lefeuvre C, Serri O, et al. (2020) Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech). J Clin Virol 129: 104511. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104511
|
| [112] | (2020) Johns Hopkins University Health Safety Center official website. Available from: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/serology/Serology-based-tests-for-COVID-19.html. |
| [113] | (2020) Cellex Ltd. official website. Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. Available from: https://cellexcovid.com. |
| [114] | (2020) ChemBio Ltd. official website. DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System. Available from: http://chembio.com. |
| [115] | (2020) Hardy diagnostics official website. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test. Available from: https://hardydiagnostics.com/sars-cov-2. |
| [116] | (2020) Healgen Scientific LLC official website. COVID-19 Antibody Rapid Detection Kit. Available from: https://www.healgen.com/if-respiratory-covid-19. |
| [117] | (2020) Hangzhou Biotest Biotech Co., Ltd official website. RightSign™ COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit. Available from: https://www.healgen.com/if-respiratory-covid-19. |
| [118] | (2020) Biohit Healthcare (Heifei) Co. Ltd. official website. Biohit SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Test Kit. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/139283/download. |
| [119] | (2020) Hangzhou Laihe Biotech Co., Ltd official website. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IgM/IgG Antibody Combo Test Kit. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/139410/download. |
| [120] | (2020) Aytu Biosciences/Orient Gene Biotech official website. The COVID-19 IgG/IgM Point-of-Care Rapid Test. Available from: https://stocknewsnow.com/companynews/5035338834942348/ AYTU/101843. |
| [121] |
Sajid M, Kawde AN, Daud M (2015) Designs, formats and applications of lateral flow assay: A literature review. J Saudi Chem Soc 19: 689-705. doi: 10.1016/j.jscs.2014.09.001
|
| [122] |
Choi JR, Hu J, Gong Y, et al. (2016) An integrated lateral flow assay for effective DNA amplification and detection at the point of care. Analyst 141: 2930-2939. doi: 10.1039/C5AN02532J
|
| [123] |
Kamphee H, Chaiprasert A, Prammananan T, et al. (2015) Rapid molecular detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis by PCR-nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassay. PLoS One 10: e0137791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137791
|
| [124] |
Huang YH, Yu KY, Huang SP, et al. (2020) Development of a Nucleic Acid Lateral Flow Immunoassay for the Detection of Human Polyomavirus BK. Diagnostics (Basel) 10: 403. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10060403
|
| [125] |
Mens PF, de Bes HM, Sondo P, et al. (2012) Direct blood PCR in combination with nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassay for detection of Plasmodium species in settings where malaria is endemic. J Clin Microbiol 50: 3520-3525. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01426-12
|
| [126] |
Pecchia S, Da Lio D (2018) Development of a rapid PCR-Nucleic Acid Lateral Flow Immunoassay (PCR-NALFIA) based on rDNA IGS sequence analysis for the detection of Macrophomina phaseolina in soil. J Microbiol Methods 151: 118-128. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.06.010
|
| [127] |
Moers AP, Hallett RL, Burrow R, et al. (2015) Detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum by PCR primer extension and lateral flow immunoassay. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59: 365-371. doi: 10.1128/AAC.03395-14
|
| [128] |
Roth JM, Sawa P, Omweri G, et al. (2018) Molecular Detection of Residual Parasitemia after Pyronaridine-Artesunate or Artemether-Lumefantrine Treatment of Uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in Kenyan Children. Am J Trop Med Hyg 99: 970-977. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0233
|
| [129] |
Rule GS, Montagna RA, Durst RA (1996) Rapid method for visual identification of specific DNA sequences based on DNA-tagged liposomes. Clinical Chemistry 42: 1206-1209. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/42.8.1206
|
| [130] |
Jauset-Rubio M, Svobodová M, Mairal T, et al. (2016) Ultrasensitive, rapid and inexpensive detection of DNA using paper based lateral flow assay. Sci Rep 6: 37732. doi: 10.1038/srep37732
|
| 1. | Sonia Carolina Mantilla Toloza, Carlos Alberto Jaimes Guerrero, Piedad Rocio Lerma Castaño, Knowledge and Practices of Back Care, Experience in Colombian Children, 2021, 8, 2333-794X, 2333794X2110234, 10.1177/2333794X211023460 | |
| 2. | Paulo Henrique Guerra, Raquel Martelo, Maieli Naiara da Silva, Giovana Frazon de Andrade, Diego Giulliano Destro Christofaro, Mathias Roberto Loch, Screen time and low back pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review of Brazilian studies, 2023, 41, 1984-0462, 10.1590/1984-0462/2023/41/2021342 | |
| 3. | Francisco Valter Miranda Silva, Paula Pessoa de Brito Nunes, Guilherme da Silva Gomes, Francisco Felipe Cardoso Rabelo, Alanda Luiza Da Silva Pinheiro, Francisco Suivan Rodrigues Quinto Duarte, Valdeni de Sousa Nascimento , Elenita Justino Custodio, Ana Paula Vasconcellos Abdon, Prevalência e fatores associados a dor lombar em adolescentes escolares: Um estudo transversal, 2024, 2965-4556, e12241, 10.70368/gecs.v1i1.12241 | |
| 4. | Laura R C Montgomery, Michael Swain, Amabile B Dario, Mary O'Keeffe, Tie P Yamato, Jan Hartvigsen, Simon French, Christopher Williams, Steve Kamper, Does sedentary behaviour cause spinal pain in children and adolescents? A systematic review with meta-analysis, 2024, 0306-3674, bjsports-2024-108648, 10.1136/bjsports-2024-108648 |
Figures(2) / Tables(5)
Boris G. Andryukov. Six decades of lateral flow immunoassay: from determining metabolic markers to diagnosing COVID-19[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 280-304. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020018
| Continuous variables | Male (n = 303) |
Female (n = 274) |
p-value |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age (Years) | 11.95 (0.65) | 12.02 (0.74) | (U(39321.00); p = 0.27) |
| Weight (Kg) | 43.64 (11.80) | 47.20 (11.35) | (U(32738.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Height (m) | 1.51 (0.07) | 1.53 (0.07) | (T(-2.9146); p = 0.00)* |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 18.89 (4.12) | 18.89 (4.12) | (U(33513.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Daily ST (h) | 3.72 (1.65) | 3.92 (1.65) | (U(36869.50); p = 0.14) |
| Score PAQ-C | 2.70 (0.71) | 2.45(0.72) | (T(3.9088); p = 0.00)* |
Note: n = Number of students; SD = Standard Deviation; ST = Screen time; h = Hours; Kg = Kilograms; BMI = Body Mass Index; m = Meters; m2 = Height in meters squared; Score PAQ-C = Indicates in arbitrary unit the level of average physical activity predicted by the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children; p-value = value of significance; * = p ≤ 0.05 according student's T test or Mann-Whitney U test; # ST (♂ n = 296), and (♀ n = 268); # PAQ-C (♂ n = 251).
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical variables | Male (n = 292) |
Female (n = 268) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Pain complaint | 123 (42.12) | 161 (60.07) | (χ2(5.534); p = 0.01)* |
| Pain at the moment | 52 (17.80) | 90 (33.58) | (χ2(10.310); p = 0.00)* |
| Cervical pain | 73 (25.00) | 101 (36.86) | (χ2(5.113); p = 0.02)* |
| Thoracic spine pain | 69 (23.63) | 87 (31.75) | (χ2(2.747); p = 0.09) |
| Low back pain | 45 (15.41) | 62 (22.62) | (χ2(3.264); p = 0.07) |
| 1 region of the spine | 67 (22.94) | 92 (34.32) | (χ2(4.096); p = 0.04)* |
| 2 regions of the spine | 38 (13.01) | 43 (16.04) | (χ2(0.580); p = 0.44) |
| 3 regions of the spine | 13 (4.45) | 22 (8.20) | (χ2(2.397); p = 0.12) |
| Cervical pain | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Cervical pain mild | 44 (60.27) | 47 (46.53) | (χ2(0.749); p = 0.38) |
| Cervical pain medium | 22 (30.13) | 34 (33.66) | (χ2(0.039); p = 0.84) |
| Cervical pain Strong | 5 (6.84) | 16 (15.84) | (χ2(1.870); p = 0.17) |
| Cervical pain Unbearable | 2 (2.73) | 4 (3.96) | (χ2(0.000); p = 1.00) |
| 7x per week | 1 (1.36) | 7 (6.93) | (χ2(1.665); p = 0.19) |
| 4–6 x per week | 5 (6.84) | 6 (5.94) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.93) |
| 1–3x per week | 20 (27.39) | 30 (29.70) | (χ2(0.007); p = 0.93) |
| 1–4x per month | 21 (28.76) | 31 (30.69) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 1–4x per year | 26 (35.61) | 27 (26.73) | (χ2(0.570); p = 0.45) |
| Thoracic spine pain | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Thoracic spine pain mild | 38 (55.07) | 47 (54.02) | (χ2(0.004); p = 0.94) |
| Thoracic spine pain medium | 18 (26.08) | 22 (25.28) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.92) |
| Thoracic spine pain Strong | 9 (13.04) | 14 (16.09) | (χ2(0.055); p = 0.81) |
| Thoracic spine pain unbearable | 4 (5.79) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 7x per week | 4 (5.79) | 3 (3.44) | (χ2(1.583); p = 0.20) |
| 4–6 x per week | 6 (8.69) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.414); p = 0.51) |
| 1–3x per week | 21 (30.43) | 27 (31.03) | (χ2(0.012); p = 0.91) |
| 1–4x per month | 24 (34.78) | 33 (37.93) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 14 (20.28) | 20 (22.98) | (χ2(0.018); p = 0.89) |
| Low back pain | Male (n=45) |
Female (n=62) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Low back pain mild | 29 (64.44) | 29 (46.77) | (χ2(0.665); p = 0.41) |
| Low back pain medium | 8 (17.77) | 21 (33.87) | (χ2(1.446); p = 0.22) |
| Low back pain Strong | 5 (11.11) | 7 (11.29) | (χ2(0.080); p = 0.77) |
| Low back pain unbearable | 3 (6.66) | 5 (8.06) | (χ2(0.014); p = 0.90) |
| 7x per week | 1 (2.22) | 2 (3.22) | (χ2(0.085); p = 0.77) |
| 4–6 x per week | 4 (8.88) | 4 (6.45) | (χ2(0.005); p = 0.94) |
| 1–3x per week | 12 (26.66) | 20 (32.25) | (χ2(0.065); p = 0.79) |
| 1–4x per month | 17 (37.77) | 24 (38.70) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 11 (24.44) | 12 (19.35) | (χ2(0.076); p = 0.78) |
Note: n = Number of students; p-value = value of significance; * = p ≤ 0.05 according χ2 Chi-square test; (%) = Gender-proportional sampling value.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 49; Female = 67) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 24; Female = 34) | 0.27 | 1.46 | 0.74–2.90 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 0.48–1.74 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 51; Female = 79) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 22; Female = 22) | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.51–1.95 | 0.76 | 0.89 | 0.45–1.79 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 17; Female = 18) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 56; Female = 83) | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.44–2.10 | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.26–1.30 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 33; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 40; Female = 16) | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.05 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.08–11.20 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 48; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male =2 5; Female = 16) | 0.04* | 0.07 | 0.01–0.98 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.06–10.49 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 97) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 14; Female = 4) | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.04–6.88 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.05–13.93 |
| Video Game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 100) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 5; Female = 1) | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.01–2.29 | 0.94 | 120163.70 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 66; Female = 99) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 7; Female = 2) | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.03–6.85 | 0.85 | 0.72 | 0.02–23.72 |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 13) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 88) | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.23–1.81 | 0.10 | 2.57 | 0.83–7.92 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 7; Female = 20) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 66; Female = 81) | 0.91 | 19350.07 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.26 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 29) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 72) | 0.92 | 7066.97 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.01–2.45 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 72; Female = 101) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 55; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 14; Female = 29) | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.23–1.09 | 0.63 | 0.85 | 0.44–1.64 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 26; Female = 16) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 43; Female = 71) | 0.45 | 1.27 | 0.67–2.45 | 0.55 | 0.80 | 0.40–1.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 19; Female = 9) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 50; Female = 78) | 0.22 | 0.63 | 0.31–1.32 | 0.18 | 1.80 | 0.75–4.33 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 32; Female = 19) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 37; Female = 68) | 0.92 | 11896.58 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 29770.46 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 54; Female = 74) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 15; Female = 13) | 0.91 | 19994.20 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 34903.44 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 83) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 4) | 0.91 | 27398.27 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 30448.01 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.93 | 2567.45 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 63; Female = 86) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 6; Female = 1) | 0.91 | 32065.66 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 35288.55 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 11) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 63; Female = 76) | 0.73 | 1.19 | 0.42–3.42 | 0.89 | 1.07 | 0.37–3.15 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 11; Female = 31) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 58; Female = 56) | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.03–4.56 | 0.91 | 31102.84 | 0.00-Infinity |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 56) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 31) | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.03–6.15 | 0.90 | 51141.99 | 0.00–Infinity |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Categorical Variables (cases) | Male (n = 45) |
Female (n = 62) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 33; Female = 44) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 12; Female = 18) | 0.64 | 0.80 | 0.33–2.00 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.28–1.35 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 15; Female = 18) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 30; Female = 44) | 0.78 | 1.11 | 0.51–2.47 | 0.15 | 1.71 | 0.81–3.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 11; Female = 10) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 34; Female = 52) | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.29–1.75 | 0.68 | 0.82 | 0.32–2.11 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 27; Female = 52) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 18; Female = 10) | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.02–2.37 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.07–11.61 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 7) | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.35 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.03–5.72 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 1) | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.03–5.25 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.01–6.97 |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male =4 3; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.00–1.77 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 45; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 0; Female = 1) | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.00–2.45 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 4; Female = 8) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 41; Female = 54) | 0.03* | 0.32 | 0.12–0.91 | 0.66 | 0.77 | 0.25–2.43 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 10; Female = 24) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 35; Female = 38) | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.18 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.04–7.93 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 39) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 23) | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.02–4.86 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.07–12.68 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 43; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.64 | 0.42 | 0.01–15.91 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
Note: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; * = p ≤ 0.05.
DownLoad:
CSV
| Continuous variables | Male (n = 303) |
Female (n = 274) |
p-value |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age (Years) | 11.95 (0.65) | 12.02 (0.74) | (U(39321.00); p = 0.27) |
| Weight (Kg) | 43.64 (11.80) | 47.20 (11.35) | (U(32738.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Height (m) | 1.51 (0.07) | 1.53 (0.07) | (T(-2.9146); p = 0.00)* |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 18.89 (4.12) | 18.89 (4.12) | (U(33513.50); p = 0.00)* |
| Daily ST (h) | 3.72 (1.65) | 3.92 (1.65) | (U(36869.50); p = 0.14) |
| Score PAQ-C | 2.70 (0.71) | 2.45(0.72) | (T(3.9088); p = 0.00)* |
| Categorical variables | Male (n = 292) |
Female (n = 268) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Pain complaint | 123 (42.12) | 161 (60.07) | (χ2(5.534); p = 0.01)* |
| Pain at the moment | 52 (17.80) | 90 (33.58) | (χ2(10.310); p = 0.00)* |
| Cervical pain | 73 (25.00) | 101 (36.86) | (χ2(5.113); p = 0.02)* |
| Thoracic spine pain | 69 (23.63) | 87 (31.75) | (χ2(2.747); p = 0.09) |
| Low back pain | 45 (15.41) | 62 (22.62) | (χ2(3.264); p = 0.07) |
| 1 region of the spine | 67 (22.94) | 92 (34.32) | (χ2(4.096); p = 0.04)* |
| 2 regions of the spine | 38 (13.01) | 43 (16.04) | (χ2(0.580); p = 0.44) |
| 3 regions of the spine | 13 (4.45) | 22 (8.20) | (χ2(2.397); p = 0.12) |
| Cervical pain | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Cervical pain mild | 44 (60.27) | 47 (46.53) | (χ2(0.749); p = 0.38) |
| Cervical pain medium | 22 (30.13) | 34 (33.66) | (χ2(0.039); p = 0.84) |
| Cervical pain Strong | 5 (6.84) | 16 (15.84) | (χ2(1.870); p = 0.17) |
| Cervical pain Unbearable | 2 (2.73) | 4 (3.96) | (χ2(0.000); p = 1.00) |
| 7x per week | 1 (1.36) | 7 (6.93) | (χ2(1.665); p = 0.19) |
| 4–6 x per week | 5 (6.84) | 6 (5.94) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.93) |
| 1–3x per week | 20 (27.39) | 30 (29.70) | (χ2(0.007); p = 0.93) |
| 1–4x per month | 21 (28.76) | 31 (30.69) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 1–4x per year | 26 (35.61) | 27 (26.73) | (χ2(0.570); p = 0.45) |
| Thoracic spine pain | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Thoracic spine pain mild | 38 (55.07) | 47 (54.02) | (χ2(0.004); p = 0.94) |
| Thoracic spine pain medium | 18 (26.08) | 22 (25.28) | (χ2(0.008); p = 0.92) |
| Thoracic spine pain Strong | 9 (13.04) | 14 (16.09) | (χ2(0.055); p = 0.81) |
| Thoracic spine pain unbearable | 4 (5.79) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.002); p = 0.96) |
| 7x per week | 4 (5.79) | 3 (3.44) | (χ2(1.583); p = 0.20) |
| 4–6 x per week | 6 (8.69) | 4 (4.59) | (χ2(0.414); p = 0.51) |
| 1–3x per week | 21 (30.43) | 27 (31.03) | (χ2(0.012); p = 0.91) |
| 1–4x per month | 24 (34.78) | 33 (37.93) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 14 (20.28) | 20 (22.98) | (χ2(0.018); p = 0.89) |
| Low back pain | Male (n=45) |
Female (n=62) |
p-value |
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Low back pain mild | 29 (64.44) | 29 (46.77) | (χ2(0.665); p = 0.41) |
| Low back pain medium | 8 (17.77) | 21 (33.87) | (χ2(1.446); p = 0.22) |
| Low back pain Strong | 5 (11.11) | 7 (11.29) | (χ2(0.080); p = 0.77) |
| Low back pain unbearable | 3 (6.66) | 5 (8.06) | (χ2(0.014); p = 0.90) |
| 7x per week | 1 (2.22) | 2 (3.22) | (χ2(0.085); p = 0.77) |
| 4–6 x per week | 4 (8.88) | 4 (6.45) | (χ2(0.005); p = 0.94) |
| 1–3x per week | 12 (26.66) | 20 (32.25) | (χ2(0.065); p = 0.79) |
| 1–4x per month | 17 (37.77) | 24 (38.70) | (χ2(0.015); p = 0.90) |
| 1–4x per year | 11 (24.44) | 12 (19.35) | (χ2(0.076); p = 0.78) |
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 73) |
Female (n = 101) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 49; Female = 67) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 24; Female = 34) | 0.27 | 1.46 | 0.74–2.90 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 0.48–1.74 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 51; Female = 79) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 22; Female = 22) | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.51–1.95 | 0.76 | 0.89 | 0.45–1.79 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 17; Female = 18) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 56; Female = 83) | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.44–2.10 | 0.19 | 0.58 | 0.26–1.30 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 33; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 40; Female = 16) | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.05 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.08–11.20 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 48; Female = 85) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male =2 5; Female = 16) | 0.04* | 0.07 | 0.01–0.98 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.06–10.49 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 97) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 14; Female = 4) | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.04–6.88 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.05–13.93 |
| Video Game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 100) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 5; Female = 1) | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.01–2.29 | 0.94 | 120163.70 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 66; Female = 99) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 7; Female = 2) | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.03–6.85 | 0.85 | 0.72 | 0.02–23.72 |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 13) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 88) | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.23–1.81 | 0.10 | 2.57 | 0.83–7.92 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 7; Female = 20) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 66; Female = 81) | 0.91 | 19350.07 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.01–2.26 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 29) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 67; Female = 72) | 0.92 | 7066.97 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.01–2.45 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 72; Female = 101) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Categorical variables (cases) | Male (n = 69) |
Female (n = 87) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 55; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 14; Female = 29) | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.23–1.09 | 0.63 | 0.85 | 0.44–1.64 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 26; Female = 16) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 43; Female = 71) | 0.45 | 1.27 | 0.67–2.45 | 0.55 | 0.80 | 0.40–1.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 19; Female = 9) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 50; Female = 78) | 0.22 | 0.63 | 0.31–1.32 | 0.18 | 1.80 | 0.75–4.33 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 32; Female = 19) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 37; Female = 68) | 0.92 | 11896.58 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 29770.46 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 54; Female = 74) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 15; Female = 13) | 0.91 | 19994.20 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 34903.44 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 83) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 4) | 0.91 | 27398.27 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 30448.01 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.93 | 2567.45 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 63; Female = 86) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 6; Female = 1) | 0.91 | 32065.66 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.91 | 35288.55 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 6; Female = 11) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 63; Female = 76) | 0.73 | 1.19 | 0.42–3.42 | 0.89 | 1.07 | 0.37–3.15 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 11; Female = 31) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 58; Female = 56) | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.03–4.56 | 0.91 | 31102.84 | 0.00-Infinity |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 59; Female = 56) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 10; Female = 31) | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.03–6.15 | 0.90 | 51141.99 | 0.00–Infinity |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 68; Female = 87) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 1; Female = 0) | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Categorical Variables (cases) | Male (n = 45) |
Female (n = 62) |
||||
| P | OR | CI 95% | p | OR | CI 95% | |
| Nutritional status: | ||||||
| Not overweight: (Male = 33; Female = 44) | ||||||
| Overweight: (Male = 12; Female = 18) | 0.64 | 0.80 | 0.33–2.00 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.28–1.35 |
| Physical activity level: | ||||||
| Physically active: (Male = 15; Female = 18) | ||||||
| Physically inactive: (Male = 30; Female = 44) | 0.78 | 1.11 | 0.51–2.47 | 0.15 | 1.71 | 0.81–3.64 |
| Screen time: | ||||||
| ≤two hours: (Male = 11; Female = 10) | ||||||
| ≥two hours: (Male = 34; Female = 52) | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.29–1.75 | 0.68 | 0.82 | 0.32–2.11 |
| Cellphone: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 27; Female = 52) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 18; Female = 10) | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.02–2.37 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.07–11.61 |
| Television: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 58) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 7) | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.35 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.03–5.72 |
| Computer: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 1) | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.03–5.25 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.01–6.97 |
| Video game: | ||||||
| No: (Male =4 3; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.00–1.77 | 0.95 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| Tablet: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 45; Female = 61) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 0; Female = 1) | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.00–2.45 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
| More than one electronic device: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 4; Female = 8) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 41; Female = 54) | 0.03* | 0.32 | 0.12–0.91 | 0.66 | 0.77 | 0.25–2.43 |
| Entertainment: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 10; Female = 24) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 35; Female = 38) | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.01–2.18 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.04–7.93 |
| Communication: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 37; Female = 39) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 8; Female = 23) | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.02–4.86 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.07–12.68 |
| School activities: | ||||||
| No: (Male = 43; Female = 62) | ||||||
| Yes: (Male = 2; Female = 0) | 0.64 | 0.42 | 0.01–15.91 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00–Infinity |
