MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy

2007· review· en· W4253196078 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Pennick, Gavin Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPregnancyPelvic painChildbirthAcupunctureConfidence intervalRelative riskBack painEveningLow back painPsychological interventionPlaceboSurgeryAlternative medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The pain increases with advancing pregnancy and interferes with work, daily activities and sleep. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing and treating back and pelvic pain in pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group's Trials Register (February 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any treatment to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of back or pelvic pain in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies dealing specifically with prevention of back or pelvic pain. We included eight studies (1305 participants) that examined the effects of adding various pregnancy-specific exercises, physiotherapy, acupuncture and pillows to usual prenatal care. For women with low-back pain, participating in strengthening exercises, sitting pelvic tilt exercises (standardised mean difference (SMD) -5.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.40 to -4.27), and water gymnastics reduced pain intensity and back pain-related sick leave (relative risk (RR) 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92) better than usual prenatal care alone. The specially-designed Ozzlo pillow was more effective than a regular one in relieving back pain (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55), but is no longer commercially available. Both acupuncture and stabilising exercises relieved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Acupuncture gave more relief from evening pain than exercises. For women with both pelvic and back pain, in one study, acupuncture was more effective than physiotherapy in reducing the intensity of their pain; stretching exercises resulted in more total pain relief (60%) than usual care (11%); and 60% of those who received acupuncture reported less intense pain, compared to 14% of those receiving usual prenatal care. Women who received usual prenatal care reported more use of analgesics, physical modalities and sacroiliac belts. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All but one study had moderate to high potential for bias, so results must be viewed cautiously. Adding pregnancy-specific exercises, physiotherapy or acupuncture to usual prenatal care appears to relieve back or pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care alone, although the effects are small. We do not know if they actually prevent pain from starting in the first place. Water gymnastics appear to help women stay at work. Acupuncture shows better results compared to physiotherapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207