Comparing the effects of different dynamic sitting strategies in wheelchair seating on lumbar-pelvic angle

Table 4 Range of motion in pelvic angle form dynamic change

		P value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
DSSs	PRM (Degree)	LPDS	BRDS	FUDS	LBDS	LFDS	BFDS
LPDS	4.02 ± 1.84
BRDS	39.70 ± 4.60	<0.001
FUDS	0.93 ± 1.06	<0.001	<0.001
LBDS	31.44 ± 5.10	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
LFDS	4.22 ± 2.26	0.823	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
BFDS	37.67 ± 8.68	<0.001	0.723	<0.001	0.003	<0.001
LBFDS	31.31 ± 6.11	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.852	<0.001	0.004
P value of the Friedman test				<0.001

Comparison of mean pelvic range of motion (PRM) form dynamic change across 7 dynamic sitting strategies (DSSs), which include Lumbar Prominent Dynamic Sitting (LPDS), Back Reclined Dynamic Sitting (BRDS), Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (FUDS), Lumbar Prominent with Back Reclined Dynamic Sitting (LBDS), Lumbar Prominent with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (LFDS), Back Reclined with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (BFDS), and Lumbar Prominent with Back Reclined with Femur Upward Dynamic Sitting (LBFDS). Each PRM parameter is given as the averaging value when two dynamic alteration process over a sitting trial. Values are mean ± standard deviation (N = 20)

ISSN: 1471-2474