Does research support the current conservative care recommendations for pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA) is a widespread condition. The current evidence for its conservative management is contradictory, as are the criteria for making a diagnosis, which has stimulated debate among practitioners. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize the existing peer-reviewed literature to determine whether there is evidence to support or refute recently published recommendations for the conservative care of perinatal DRA. These guidelines suggest that it should be approached from the perspective of considering the linea alba (LA) as an integrative component of the thoracopelvic abdominal system, which assumes functional relationships between the structures of the thorax and pelvis. Specifically, the present authors explored whether relationships exist between: (1) the LA and breathing mechanics; (2) pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function; (3) lumbopelvic pain (LPP) control; and (4) aspects of the structure and function of the abdominal wall. Of the 31 studies included, none were found relating to the LA and breathing mechanics, 11 investigated PFM function, 10 explored LPP, and 18 examined the LA with respect to the structure and/or function of the abdominal wall. The research reviewed does not appear to substantiate several of the recommendations for the conservative care of DRA, but does align with cited gaps in knowledge about this condition. The studies included neither support nor necessarily refute the relationships between breathing, PFM function and LPP. This scoping review also highlights the limitations of the current characterization of DRA and related assessment strategies, particularly the reliance on heterogeneous measurements of inter-recti distance as the primary and sometimes only measurement to inform clinical reasoning with respect to the condition.
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 | 0.045 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".