Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2008
Long-term effectiveness and costs of a brief self-management intervention in women with pregnancy-related low back pain after delivery.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of physical therapy on pain, disability and quality of life in women with lumbopelvic pain in postpartum period: a systematic review with evidence gap map and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Outcomes and outcomes measurements used in intervention studies of pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2012Pooled it
- Educating women to prevent and treat low back and pelvic girdle pain during and after pregnancy: a systematized narrative review.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Adverse events from spinal manipulations in the pregnant and postpartum periods: a systematic review and update.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2021Article
- Factors associated with persistent pain after childbirth: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2020Review
- Common musculoskeletal impairments in postpartum runners: an international Delphi study.Archives of physiotherapy · 2020Article
- Pelvic girdle pain 3-6 months after delivery in an unselected cohort of Norwegian women.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Article
- Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain: listening to Australian women.Nursing research and practice · 2012Article
- Pregnancy-related low back pain.Hippokratia · 2011Article
- Impact of postpartum lumbopelvic pain on disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, activity level, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2011Article
- Evidence of stabilizing exercises for low back- and pelvic girdle pain - a critical review.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy-related low back pain is considered an important health problem and potentially leads to long-lasting pain and disability. Investigators draw particular attention to biomedical factors but there is growing evidence that psychosocial and social factors might be important. It prompted us to start a large cohort study (n = 7526) during pregnancy until one year after delivery and a nested randomized controlled intervention study in the Netherlands.
methodsA randomized controlled trial (n = 126) nested within a cohort study, of brief self-management techniques versus usual care for treatment of women with persisting non-specific pregnancy-related low back pain three weeks after delivery. Women in the intervention group were referred to a participating physiotherapist. Women in the usual care group were free to choose physiotherapy, guidance by a general practitioner or no treatment. Follow up took place at 3 months, 6 months and one year after delivery.Outcomes included change in limitations in activities (RDQ), pain (VAS), severity of main complaints (MC), global feeling of recovery (GPE), impact on participation and autonomy (IPA), pain-related fear (TSK), SF-36, EuroQol and a cost diary. For the outcome measures, series of mixed models were considered. For the outcome variable global perceived effect (GPE) a logistic regression analysis is performed.
resultsIntention-to-treat outcomes showed a statistical significant better estimated regression coefficient RDQ -1.6 {-2.9;-0.5} associated with treatment, as well as better IPA subscale autonomy in self-care -1.0 {-1.9;-0.03} and TSK -2.4 {-3.8;-1.1} but were not clinical relevant over time. Average total costs in the intervention group were much lower than in usual care, primarily due to differences in utilization of sick leave but not statistically significant.
conclusionBrief self-management techniques applied in the first 3 months after delivery may be a more viable first-line approach but further research is needed to draw inference on costs and to determine whether no care is a better option in the long term.
trial registration[ISRCTN08477490].
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.