MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034105802 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v13i2.499

Pregnancy-related Pelvic Girdle Pain and Pregnancy Massage: Findings from a Subgroup Analysis of an Observational Study

2020· article· en· W3034105802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Fogarty, Catherine McInerney, Phillipa Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageMedicinePregnancyObservational studyPhysical therapyPelvic painSubgroup analysisPost-hoc analysisObstetricsRange of motionVisual analogue scaleInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPGP) significantly impacts women’s lives both physically and psychologically. Given the severity and impact of PPGP on pregnancy, the authors anticipated that pregnant women with PPGP might respond differently to massage than pregnant women without PPGP. Purpose: The aim of the study was to further analyze a published 2017 study to assess the response of pregnancy massage in participants with and without PPGP. Setting: Two massage clinics, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne, recruited participants from December 2016 to December 2017. Participants: Nineteen women with PPGP and 78 without PPGP. Research Design: PPGP and non-PPGP women receiving at least one massage, with outcome measures assessed immediately prior to and after massage, and again one week post-massage. Main Outcome Measures: Visual analog scales for pain, stress, range of movement, sleep, and self-reported side effects of massage. Results: Both groups changed significantly and similarly over time for measures of pain, stress, range of motion, and sleep (all p < .05). Post hoc analysis found significant reduction in all outcome measures immediately following massage, but returned to baseline at one week post-massage for all measures except pain, which remained reduced for the PPGP group (49.79±25.68 to 34.75±34.75, p = .03, effect size 0.593), and stress remained reduced in the non-PPGP group (33.36±21.54 to 24.90±19.18, p = .002, effect size 0.373). The PPGP group entered the study with higher baseline levels of pain (p = .01) and a greater restriction in range of motion (p = .006) than the non-PPGP group. There was no difference in the number of side effects experienced between the two groups (p = .130). Conclusions: Although PPGP clients report greater pain and restriction in range of motion at baseline than non-PPGP clients, the response to pregnancy massage was similar. Results support a role of pregnancy massage in the management of PPGP. More research on massage for PPGP is needed to confirm a lasting effect of pain reduction from massage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & PracticeSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207