Impact of exercise on musculoskeletal pain and disability in the postpartum period: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of exercise on musculoskeletal pain (low back pain (LBP), pelvic girdle pain (PGP), lumbopelvic pain (LBPP) and bodily pain) and kinesiophobia during the postpartum period. DESIGN: Systematic review with random effects meta-analysis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Online databases were searched from database inception to 12 January 2024. Studies of all designs (except case studies) of any publication date or language were included if they contained information on the population (women and people in the first year postpartum), intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume or type of exercise, alone ('exercise-only') or in combination with other interventions (eg, electrotherapy, infrared irradiation, ultrasound; 'exercise+cointervention')), comparator (no exercise or different exercise measures) and outcome (symptom severity of LBP/PGP/LBPP, related disability, bodily pain and kinesiophobia). RESULTS: 37 studies (N=3769 participants) from 15 countries were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that exercise-only interventions, including various strengthening exercises targeting the trunk muscles, were associated with a greater reduction in LBPP symptom severity (4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n=210; mean difference -2.21 points (on a 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale) 95% CI -3.33 to -1.08) and related disability (6 RCTs, n=296; standardised mean difference -1.17, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.43; large effect size) as compared with no exercise. Similar results were found for bodily pain (2 RCTs, n=318). Evidence was limited and inconclusive regarding the impact of exercise interventions on kinesiophobia. CONCLUSION: Postnatal exercises, including a variety of muscular strengthening exercises targeting the trunk muscles, decrease the symptom severity of LBPP and related disability.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".