Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31992365›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2020

Sex differences in muscle activity and motor variability in response to a non-fatiguing repetitive screwing task.

Tessy Luger, Robert Seibt, Monika A Rieger, Benjamin Steinhilber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biological Sex-Related Differences in Glenohumeral Dynamics Variability during Pediatric Manual Wheelchair Propulsion.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2021
    Article
  6. Spinal muscular atrophy: Broad disease spectrum and sex-specific phenotypes.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tessy LugerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, DE-72074, Tübingen, Germany. Tessy.Luger@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-251X
Robert SeibtInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, DE-72074, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, DE-72074, Tübingen, Germany.
Benjamin SteinhilberInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, DE-72074, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal disorders are more prevalent among women than among men, which may be explained by aspects of motor control, including neuromuscular requirements and motor variability. Using an exploratory approach, this study aimed to evaluate sex differences in neuromuscular responses and motor variability during a repetitive task performed on 3 days.

methodsThirty women and 27 men performed the non-fatiguing, repetitive, 1-h screwing task. For neuromuscular responses, the mean and difference values of static, median, and peak percentile muscle activity levels (normalized to a reference voluntary contraction force) and, for motor variability, the mean and difference values of relative and absolute cycle-to-cycle variability across days were compared between both sexes for each muscle. A mixed-design analysis of variance was used to assess differences between both sexes.

resultsThe non-fatiguing character of the screwing task was confirmed by the absence of decreased force levels in maximal voluntary contractions performed before and after the task and by absence of electromyographic signs of muscle fatigue. The static and median muscle activity levels tended to be higher among women (on average 7.86 and 27.23 %RVE) than men (on average 6.04 and 26.66 %RVE). Relative motor variability of the flexor and biceps muscles and absolute motor variability of both upper arm muscles were lower in women (on average 0.79 and 29.70 %RVE) than in men (on average 0.89 and 37.55 %RVE). The median activity level of both upper arms muscles tended to decrease within days among women (on average - 2.63 %RVE) but increase among men (on average + 1.19 %RVE). Absolute motor variability decreased within days among women (on average - 5.32 to - 0.34%RVE), whereas it tended to decrease less or increase within days among men (on average - 1.21 to + 0.25 %RVE).

conclusionWomen showed higher levels of muscle activity and lower initial relative and absolute motor variability than males when performing the same occupational task, implying women may have a higher risk for developing disorders and point to both sexes using different intrinsic motor control strategies in task performance. Clearly, biological aspects alone cannot explain why women would be at higher risk for developing disorders than men. Therefore, a wider range of individual and environmental factors should be taken into account for optimizing work station designs and organizations by taking into account sex differences.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityMuscle FatigueSex CharacteristicsAdultArmElectromyographyFemaleHandHumansMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalAdaptationCycle-to-cycle variabilityElectromyographyManual material handlingMotor controlMotor learningMotor variabilitySex differencesUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID31992365
PMCPMC6988371

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.