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

Table 2 Static pelvic angle after dynamic change

		P value of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
DSSs	PA (Degree)	LPDS	BRDS	FUDS	LBDS	LFDS	BFDS
LPDS	3.60 ± 3.82
BRDS	−51.78 ± 4.07	<0.001
FUDS	−11.17 ± 3.56	<0.001	<0.001
LBDS	−43.35 ± 7.97	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
LFDS	3.11 ± 3.36	0.191	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
BFDS	−50.10 ± 8.95	<0.001	0.823	<0.001	0.011	<0.001
LBFDS	−44.16 ± 7.94	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	0.654	<0.001	0.008
P value of the Friedman test		<0.001

Comparison of mean static pelvic angle (PA) after 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). Values are mean ± standard deviation (N = 20). The positive value (+) represents the pelvic anterior tilt while the negative value (−) represents the pelvic posterior tilt

ISSN: 1471-2474