The Effectiveness of Massage in Managing Pregnant Women with Pelvic Girdle Pain: a Randomised Controlled Crossover Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pelvic girdle pain is a common problem experienced during pregnancy, with high incidence rates and significant impacts on quality of life. Remedial massage might be able to provide some reduction in pain. Aim: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of massage in treating pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain to determine its merits and viability for use in a large-scale study. Methods: A two-arm pilot randomised feasibility crossover-controlled trial. The two treatment phases were a) remedial pregnancy massage, and b) exercise. Results: Twenty-four women started the study and 19 women completed the study. Data were collected on recruitment and retention rates, crossover study design methodology, participant sub-characteristics, and acceptability of the outcome measures (pain, quality of life, and disability). Conclusion: Recruiting participants for a pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain study is indeed feasible; however, a crossover study design is not appropriate and future studies should consider a mixed methods study design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".