Factors that cause women with osteoporosis to fall.

Objective: To analyze and compare intrinsic and extrinsic factors that cause falls among women receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional study of women ≥50 years receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Participants filled out questionnaires (demographic characteristics), and researchers took anthropometric measurements of bone mineral density, handgrip strength (HGS), ankle range of motion (ROM), and gait speed (GS). We also evaluated the Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (SST), and Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) and investigated the extrinsic factors for falls. Results: We included 144 participants (71.6 [8.3 years]), who reported 133 falls. We classified participants into a non-faller group (NFG; 0 falls, n=71, 49.5%), a faller group (FG; 1 fall, n=42, 28.9%), and a recurrent-faller group (RFG; more than 1 fall, n=31, 21.5%). Most patients had an increased risk of falling according to the TUGT, SST, reduced ankle ROM, and GS (P<.005 for all). FES-I was associated with sporadic and recurrent falls. For the multivariate analysis, the number of falls was influenced by the presence of ramps (RR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.26-0.87, P=.015), uneven surfaces (RR 1.6, 95% CI. 1.05-2.43, P=.028), and antislippery adhesive on stairs (RR 2.75, 95% CI, 1.77-4.28, P<.001). Conclusion: Patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis are influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors that cause falls. Lower-limb strength and power-discriminated participants at a higher risk of falls, but extrinsic factors varied. Only uneven floors and antislippery adhesives on stairs were associated with increased frequency of falls.

Factors that cause women with osteoporosis to fall

ABSTRACT Objectives: To analyze and compare intrinsic and extrinsic factors that cause falls among women receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional study of women ≥50 years receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Participants filled out questionnaires (demographic characteristics), and researchers took anthropometric measurements of bone mineral density, handgrip strength (HGS), ankle range of motion (ROM), and gait speed (GS). We also evaluated the Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (SST), and Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) and investigated the extrinsic factors for falls. Results: We included 144 participants (71.6 [8.3 years]), who reported 133 falls. We classified participants into a non-faller group (NFG; 0 falls, n = 71, 49.5%), a faller group (FG; 1 fall, n = 42, 28.9%), and a recurrent-faller group (RFG; more than 1 fall, n = 31, 21.5%). Most patients had an increased risk of falling according to the TUGT, SST, reduced ankle ROM, and GS (P < .005 for all). FES-I was associated with sporadic and recurrent falls. For the multivariate analysis, the number of falls was influenced by the presence of ramps (RR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.26-0.87, P = .015), uneven surfaces (RR 1.6, 95% CI. 1.05-2.43, P = .028), and antislippery adhesive on stairs (RR 2.75, 95% CI, 1.77-4.28, P < .001). Conclusion: Patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis are influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors that cause falls. Lower-limb strength and power-discriminated participants at a higher risk of falls, but extrinsic factors varied. Only uneven floors and antislippery adhesives on stairs were associated with increased frequency of falls.

Immediate analgesic effect of two modes of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and assess the immediate analgesic effects of conventional and burst transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm single-blinded randomized controlled trial. A total of 105 patients with non-specific chronic low back pain aged between 18 and 85 years were randomly assigned into the following groups: Placebo Group (sham electrical stimulation), Conventional TENS Group (continuous stimulation at 100Hz for 100µs with sensory intensity), and Burst TENS Group (stimulation at 100Hz modulated at 2Hz for 100µs with motor-level intensity). All groups received a single application of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for 30 minutes. The outcomes, namely, pain intensity, quality of pain, and pressure pain threshold were measured by the visual analog scale, McGill pain questionnaire, and algometry, respectively. The patients were evaluated before and immediately after the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation application. RESULTS: Pain intensity (visual analog scale score) and quality of pain (McGill pain questionnaire score) significantly decreased (p<0.05) in Intervention Groups (Conventional TENS Group and Burst TENS Group). A positive effect was observed in the interventions compared to the Placebo Group in all domains of the McGill pain questionnaire (p<0.05), excepting for the pain intensity. Pressure pain threshold significantly increased (p<0.05) immediately after the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation application in both Intervention Groups, but not in the Placebo Group. For significant difference was found during assessment when comparing both Intervetion Group. CONCLUSION: Both transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation modes were effective for pain modulation. Moreover, there was an increase in the pressure pain threshold. No significant results were found to indicate the best mode for the treatment of chronic low back pain.Clinical Trial Registration: RBR-59YGRB.