Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Modified CONSORT flow diagram.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Summary of the experimental setup; COP = center of pressure recordings, EMG = electromyography data, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Summary of baseline data of patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, pain duration and numerical rating scale (NRS) data.

Mean values ± standard deviations are given. BMI = body mass index

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

A: Application of a pelvic belt (SacroLoc, Bauerfeind AG, Zeulenroda-Triebes, Germany) to a 26 year-old female control. B: Recording of gait pattern data on force plates in all participants without pelvic belt, under moderate and maximum tolerable compression.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Short-form 36 survey of patients with sacroiliac joint pain, controls and comparison to low back pain patients: Six-week belt application improved health-related quality of life in the patients.

PF = physical role functioning, RP = role physical, BP = bodily pain, GH = general health perceptions, VT = vitality, SF = social role functioning, RE = role emotional functioning, MH = mental health.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Short Form 36 (SF36) transformed scores of patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain prior to pelvic belt application (pre) and in a six-weeks follow up with pelvic belt application (post).

Mean values ± standard deviations are given.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Post-hoc effect size and power analyses on the Numerical Rating Scale and Short-Form 36 physical summary and mental summary.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison of the alterations of muscle activation between SIJ patients and controls related to moderate and maximum tension.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Numerical Rating Scale of patients with sacroiliac joint pain in the investigation day without and with pelvic belt application: Pelvic belt application is related to significant decreases of pain perceptions, as compared to the last two-week perception without belt application.

** p < 0.01.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Summary of differences of muscle activation between patients with sacroiliac joint pain and controls and pelvic belt-related effects.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Gait analyses of patients with sacroiliac joint pain and healthy controls without and with pelvic belt application: Cadence: ○ = no pelvic belt; Δ = pelvic belt application with moderate tension; □ = pelvic belt application with maximum tension.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Gait analyses of patients with sacroiliac joint pain and healthy controls without and with pelvic belt application: Gait velocity; ○ = no pelvic belt; Δ = pelvic belt application with moderate tension; □ = pelvic belt application with maximum tension.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of gait pattern data of SIJ patients and controls without pelvic belt application, under moderate and maximum belt tension.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Inner-group comparison of the gait pattern data within SIJ patients or controls without pelvic belt application, under moderate and maximum tension (p-values refer to the data given in Table 5).

More »

Table 6 Expand