Skip to main content

Table 1 Study participant characteristics at baseline in the HFG and LFG

From: Secondary analysis of change in physical function after exercise intervention in older adults with hyperkyphosis and low physical function

Variable

Category

Low Function Group (LFG)

n = 26

High Function Group (HFG)

n = 75

LFG vs. HFG*

Entire Cohort

n = 101

N (%), mean ± SD

N (%), mean ± SD

p-value

N (%), mean ± SD

Age (years)

 

72.4 ± 6.6

68.8 ± 5.2

0.005

69.7 ± 5.7

Gender

Female

12 (46)

48 (64)

0.110

60 (59)

Vertebral Fracture

none

22 (85)

65 (87)

0.741

87 (86)

1

2 (8)

7 (9)

 

9 (9)

2

2 (8)

3 (4)

 

5 (4.95)

Diffuse idiopathic hyperostosis (DISH) present (yes)

 

7 (28)

15 (21)

0.461

22 (23)

Body Mass Index(kilograms/meter2)

 

27.7 ± 3.9

25.7 ± 4.1

0.037

26.2 ± 4.1

Bone mineral density total hip t-score

 

−0.5 ± 1.3

−0.9 ± 1

0.074

−0.85 ± 1.1

Bone mineral density total spine t-score

 

0.7 ± 2.8

−0.5 ± 1.8

0.064

−0.2 ± 2.2

Race

Caucasian

25 (96)

69 (92)

0.472

94 (93)

Education

High school, some College

2 (8)

11 (15)

0.360

13 (13)

College, professional degree

24 (92)

64 (85)

0.360

88 (87)

Pain Score from PROMIS scale 1.0-Global health, 0–10 (points)

 

3.3 ± 2.7

2 ± 1.7

0.060

2.3 ± 2.1

Self-rated health from PROMIS scale 1.0-Global Health

Fair

5 (19)

3 (4)

0.006

8 (9)

Good

12 (46)

19 (25)

 

31 (31)

Very Good

7 (27)

41 (55)

 

48 (48)

Excellent

2 (8)

12 (16)

 

14 (14)

Co-morbidities

2 or more

10 (38)

30 (40)

0.890

40 (40)

  1. SD standard deviation, PROMIS Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System, LFG low functioning group, HFG high functioning group, *p values for comparison between LFG and HFG