Low back pain during pregnancy.
ABSTRACT All pregnant women from a well defined area (the central district of the County of Ostergötland, Sweden) attending antenatal clinics over a period of seven months were interviewed with regard to low back pain during pregnancy. Of 862 women who answered the questionnaires, about half developed some degree of low back pain. Seventy-nine women who were unable to continue their work because of severe low back pain were referred to an orthopedic surgeon for an orthoneurologic examination. The most common reason for severe low back pain was dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints. Physically strenuous work and previous low back pain were factors associated with an increased risk of developing low back pain and sacroiliac dysfunction during pregnancy.
- SourceAvailable from: Ciara Close[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimTo evaluate and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of low back pain and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy. Background International research demonstrates that 25–30% of women use complementary and alternative medicine to manage low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy without robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness. DesignA systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for low back and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy. Data sourcesCochrane library (1898–2013), PubMed (1996–2013), MEDLINE (1946–2013), AMED (1985–2013), Embase (1974–2013), Cinahl (1937–2013), Index to Thesis (1716–2013) and Ethos (1914–2013). Review methodsSelected studies were written in English, randomized controlled trials, a group 1 or 2 therapy and reported pain reduction as an outcome measure. Study quality was reviewed using Risk of Bias and evidence strength the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation Tool. ResultsEight studies were selected for full review. Two acupuncture studies with low risk of bias showed both clinically important changes and statistically significant results. There was evidence of effectiveness for osteopathy and chiropractic. However, osteopathy and chiropractic studies scored high for risk of bias. Strength of the evidence across studies was very low. Conclusion There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.Journal of Advanced Nursing 02/2014; DOI:10.1111/jan.12360 · 1.69 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to investigate physical activity prior to pregnancy, occupation, and treatment in women with low back pain and pelvic pain (LBPP) during pregnancy. All women who gave birth at two hospitals in northern Sweden from 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 were invited to complete a questionnaire on their obstetric and gynaecological history, actual pregnancy, and delivery. The sample was analysed with calculation of odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cox regression analyses were performed. Women with LBPP reporting a pain maximum of 7 or more on a visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) were considered to have "high pain score LBPP" (hps-LBPP). The response rate was 83% (n = 891). A higher number of years of regular leisure physical activity (RLPA) decreased the risk of LBPP during pregnancy. The risk of hps-LBPP was increased for women who characterized their occupation as "mainly active" (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.5) and "physically demanding" (OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.2). Visiting a physician as a result of LBPP was reported by 46.2%, and the mean number of visits was 2.0. One-third of women with LBPP had received treatment, as had half of women with hps-LBPP. A higher number of years of previous RLPA decreases the risk of LBPP during pregnancy. Occupations described as "mainly active" and "physically demanding" are associated with increased risk of hps-LBPP during pregnancy.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 02/2005; 33(4):300-6. DOI:10.1080/14034940510005743 · 3.13 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper is a comprehensive literature review of original research on the nature of back pain/discomfort in pregnancy. The causes of back pain/discomfort in pregnancy are reviewed and discussed, and the clinical manifestations and implications are explored. This analysis revealed that approximately 50% of pregnant women experience back pain/discomfort with little or no intervention from their health care providers. Thus, back pain/discomfort in pregnancy seems to be invisible and forgotten in contemporary antenatal care. Evidence-based guidelines are provided for both women and health professionals as a way of increasing attention to the prevention of unnecessary back pain/discomfort during pregnancy.Journal of Perinatal Education 02/2001; 10(1):1-12. DOI:10.1624/105812401X88002