Skip to main content

Table 2 Percentage of inter-segment coordination pattern comparisons between groups

From: Difference in the foot intersegmental coordination pattern between female lacrosse players with and without a history of medial Tibial stress syndrome; a cross-sectional study

Patterns

Inter-segments

Motions

MTSShistorya

Nohistorya

P value

95% CI

Effectsize

In-phase

Rear- mid

DF-PF

41.4 ± 16.9

65.4 ± 16.9

*0.002

− 38.3 to −9.7

1.42

Ev-Inv

40.5 ± 13.6

58.3 ± 17.5

*0.011

− 31 to −4.5

1.13

Mid- fore

DF-PF

28.9 ± 20.5

22.8 ± 18.5

0.453

−10.4 to 22.6

0.31

Ev-Inv

13.9 ± 9.3

8.3 ± 5.5

0.086

−0.9 to 12

0.73

Anti-phase

Rear- mid

DF-PF

3.4 ± 2.6

3.1 ± 1.5

0.702

−1.5 to 2.1

0.16

Ev-Inv

8.9 ± 6.9

9.8 ± 6.6

0.744

−6.7 to 4.8

0.14

Mid- fore

DF-PF

9.6 ± 9.1

8.9 ± 6.4

0.837

− 6 to 7.3

0.09

Ev-Inv

38.3 ± 19.2

50.9 ± 15.8

0.091

−27.5 to 2.2

0.72

Proximalphase

Rear- mid

DF-PF

52.2 ± 17.9

29.3 ± 16.7

*0.004

8.2 to 37.5

1.32

Ev-Inv

40.3 ± 22.0

15.9 ± 9.1

*0.004

10.2 to 38.6

1.45

Mid- fore

DF-PF

58.4 ± 18.5

63.1 ± 17.9

0.537

−20.1 to 10.7

0.26

Ev-Inv

31.3 ± 22.8

29.3 ± 15

0.794

−14.3 to 18.4

0.11

Distalphase

Rear- mid

DF-PF

3.0 ± 2.3

2.1 ± 1.6

0.265

−0.7 to 2.6

0.47

Ev-Inv

10.3 ± 11.4

15.8 ± 8.8

0.194

−14.2 to 3.1

0.55

Mid- fore

DF-PF

3.1 ± 3.2

5.1 ± 4.8

0.24

−5.4 to 1.4

0.49

Ev-Inv

16.5 ± 12

11.4 ± 5.6

0.199

−2.9 to 13

0.54

  1. Abbrebiation: DF-PF Dorsiflexion- plantar flexion, Ev-Inv, Eversion- Inversion
  2. aValuses are mean ± SD, *Significant differences between groups