No significant links between somatognosia, stereognosia, and hypermobility: sensory processing unlikely to drive common complaints in hypermobile population

Table 1 Characteristic of participants

	Total (n = 46)	Non-hypermobile (n = 20)	All hypermobile^a (n = 26)	Asymptomatic hypermobile^b (n = 13)	Symptomatic hypermobile^c (n = 13)
Age (y)	24.17 ± 3.90	24.45 ± 4.16	23.96 ± 3.76	23.62 ± 2.63	24.31 ± 4.71
Height (cm)	171.24 ± 8.44	172.75 ± 9.76	170.08 ± 7.26	170.77 ± 9.35	169.38 ± 4.63
Mass (kg)	68.95 ± 15.03	71.88 ± 19.90	66.70 ± 9.68	66.02 ± 11.11	67.38 ± 8.41
BMI (kg/m²)	23.34 ± 3.52	23.70 ± 4.16	23.06 ± 2.99	22.58 ± 2.71	23.54 ± 3.30
Beighton (point)	5 (4)	2 (1.25) ^*‡	6 (2) ^*	6 (1) ^‡	6 (2) ^‡

Notes. Values are mean ± standard deviation and median (interquartile range). n: number of participants; BMI: body mass index
^aParticipants with the Beighton score exceeding the generalized hypermobility thresholds reported by Singh et al. (2017) that include ^bhypermobile individuals without symptoms and ^chypermobile individuals with symptoms related to hypermobility
^*Significant differences between non-hypermobile and all hypermobile groups according to Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.001)
^‡Significant differences between non-hypermobile, asymptomatic hypermobile and symptomatic hypermobile groups according to Kruskal-Wallis. Pairwise comparisons, with Benjamini & Hochberg corrections, revealed significant differences between non-hypermobile and asymptomatic hypermobile, as well as non-hypermobile and symptomatic hypermobile groups (p < 0.001)

ISSN: 1471-2474