AIM OF THE WORK: Is to study the pattern of lip print in Egyptian and Malaysian populations and its relation to sex and populations difference. Also, to develop equations for sex and populations detection using lip print pattern by different populations (Egyptian and Malaysian).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample comprised of 120 adults volunteers divided into two ethnic groups; sixty adult Egyptians (30 males and 30 females) and sixty adult Malaysians (30 males and 30 females). The lip prints were collected on a white paper. Each lip print was divided into four compartments and were classified and scored according to Suzuki and Tsuchihashi classification. Data were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: The results showed that type III lip print pattern (intersected grooves) was the predominant type in both the Egyptian and Malaysian populations. Type II and III were the most frequent in Egyptian males (28.3% each), while in Egyptian females type III pattern was predominant (46.7%). As regards Malaysian males, type III lip print pattern was the predominant one (41.7%), while type II lip print pattern was predominant (30.8%) in Malaysian females. Statistical analysis of different quadrants showed significant differences between males and females in the Egyptian population in the third and fourth quadrants. On the other hand, significant differences were detected only in the second quadrant between Malaysian males and females. Also, a statistically significant difference was present in the second quadrant between Egyptian and Malaysian males. Using the regression analysis, four regression equations were obtained.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain.
METHODS: We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries.
RESULTS: Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group.
CONCLUSION: Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.