Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Low back pain (LBP) during pregnancy is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition with significant physical, psychological, and clinical implications. This systematic review aimed to assess the prevalence, associated risk factors, and impact of pregnancy-related LBP across diverse populations to inform evidence-based prevention and management strategies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2010 and May 2024. Eligible studies included observational research (cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control) focusing on LBP prevalence or risk factors in pregnant women. Study selection followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers using a standardized form and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Due to heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Results: Seventeen eligible studies with over 174,000 participants were included. The prevalence of LBP during pregnancy varied from 15.6% to 75.3%, with the highest rates observed in the third trimester. Consistent risk factors included a prior history of LBP (OR up to 5.4), increased BMI, advanced gestational age, multiparity, low physical activity, and poor posture. Social determinants such as rural residence and lack of support were also associated. LBP was linked to disability (mild in 60%, severe in 10%), impaired quality of life, elevated anxiety/depression scores, and higher cesarean section rates. Despite this burden, one-third of affected women did not seek medical care. Conclusion: Pregnancy-related LBP is a common and disabling condition. Routine screening and targeted prenatal interventions are essential. Further standardized, longitudinal research is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".