Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Effects of seated lumbar extension postures on spinal height and lumbar range of motion during prolonged sitting

C. Phimphasak, M. Swangnetr, R. Puntumetakul, U. Chatchawan & R. Boucaut (2016) Effects of seated lumbar extension postures on spinal height and lumbar range of motion during prolonged sitting, Ergonomics, 59:1, 112-120, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1052570

The authors wish to clarify and correct two comments made in the discussion section of this article.

1.

It was remarked that spinal height (SH) recovery after performing chair-care exercise (supported dynamic lumbar extension posture) reported by Fryer, Quon, and Smith (2010) (+ 198.46%,+ 12.9 mm, 95% CI: 6.4, 19.3 mm) was much higher than SH recovery obtained from the present study (+ 22.48%, + 0.78 mm, 95% CI: 0.03, 1.54 mm) . It is clarified that the percentage SH recovery was calculated as follows:

Fryer, Quon, and Smith (2010) found that mean SH decreased −6.5 (95% CI: −10.0, −3.0) mm after 15 min of static sitting, with mean SH increasing 12.9 (95% CI: 6.4, 19.3) mm from static sitting after performing seated unloading exercises (i.e. the intervention). This gives the SH recovery of 198.46%.

2.

The article suggested that this finding might be due to the stadiometry configuration in the Fryer et al. study being different from the present study. This comment was inaccurate and a result of the authors inadvertently referring to the methods in Fryer and Zhang (2010) instead of Fryer, Quon, and Smith (2010). The commentary in the online version of the original article has now been amended as follows:

‘SH recovery after performing chair-care exercise (supported dynamic lumbar extension posture) reported by Fryer, Quon, and Smith (2010) in their study (+ 198.46%, + 12.9 mm, 95% CI: 6.4, 19.3 mm) was much higher than SH recovery obtained from this study (+ 22.48%, + 0.78 mm, 95% CI: 0.03, 1.54 mm). Percentage SH recovery here is calculated as: (SH increase after intervention/ SH decrease after sitting for 15 min) x 100, using the SH decrease reported by Fryer et al. of −6.5 (95% CI: −10.0, −3.0) mm after 15 min of static sitting. Although the percentage SH recovery between this study and Fryer, Quon, and Smith (2010) was substantially different, the values reported in the present study were consistent and reasonable in all three conditions.’

The authors apologise for this error and wish to acknowledge Jerome Fryer DC for drawing it to attention.