Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34072828›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Peripartum Pubic Symphysis Diastasis-Practical Guidelines.

Artur Stolarczyk, Piotr Stępiński, Łukasz Sasinowski, Tomasz Czarnocki, Michał Dębiński, Bartosz Maciąg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Caesarean Section for Orthopedic Indications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Clinical Presentation and Management of Peripartum Pubic Diastasis.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Artur StolarczykDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5633-8153
Piotr StępińskiDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6955-5843
Łukasz SasinowskiDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Tomasz CzarnockiDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Michał DębińskiDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Bartosz MaciągDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0311-3735

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal development of a fetus is made possible due to a lot of adaptive changes in the woman's body. Some of the most important modifications occur in the musculoskeletal system. At the time of childbirth, natural widening of the pubic symphysis and the sacroiliac joints occur. Those changes are often reversible after childbirth. Peripartum pubic symphysis separation is a relatively rare disease and there is no homogeneous approach to treatment. The paper presents the current standards of diagnosis and treatment of pubic diastasis based on orthopedic and gynecological indications.

Indexed as

pregnancyPSDpubic symphysispubic symphysis diastasispubic symphysis separation

Identifiers

PMID34072828
PMCPMC8198205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.