Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36324105›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2022

Primiparous women's knowledge of diastasis recti abdominis, concerns about abdominal appearance, treatments, and perceived abdominal muscle strength 6-8 months postpartum. A cross sectional comparison study.

Sandra Gluppe, Marie Ellström Engh, Kari Bø

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07576218 (Comparative Effects of Pilates and Progressive Prone Plank Exercises on Pain, Strength and Inter-Rectus Distance in Diastasis Recti), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT07576218 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Effects of Pilates and Progressive Prone Plank Exercises on Pain, Strength and Inter-Rectus Distance in Diastasis Recti

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsDiastasis RectiArmsExperimental: Pilates exercises, Progressive Prone Plank Exercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Diastasis recti abdominis: A comprehensive review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra GluppeDepartment of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Sognsveien 220, 0806, Oslo, Norway. s.l.gluppe@nih.no.
Marie Ellström EnghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Akershus University Hospital, Sykehusveien 25, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
Kari BøDepartment of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Sognsveien 220, 0806, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NONorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiastasis recti abdominis (DRA) is a prevalent condition in the postpartum period. To date, there is scant knowledge on how DRA influences physical, mental, and emotional health. This study investigates primiparous women`s knowledge about DRA, concerns about abdominal appearance, and perceived abdominal muscle strength, comparing women with and without reported DRA.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional comparison study. Data were collected by a web-based questionnaire, mainly through social media in Norway. To be included in the study women had to be primiparous 6-8 months postpartum. The questionnaire contained questions regarding women`s knowledge about DRA, perceived protrusion, received treatment, concerns with abdominal appearance and muscle strength. Abdominal body image was measured through the shape concern questions from The Eating Disorder Examination questionnaire (EDE-Q 6.0). Demographic and other descriptive variables are presented as means with standard deviations (SD) or as frequencies with percentages. Chi-square test of independence and independent sample t-tests were used to compare differences between women with and without abdominal protrusion for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

resultsOur sample consisted of 460 women. Knowledge about DRA was reported by 415/440 (94.3%) women. A total of 73.3% reported to have been worried during pregnancy about abdominal appearance postpartum. Mean degree of concern about present abdominal appearance was 5.5/10 (SD 2.4). Almost 80% experienced weaker abdominal muscles than pre-pregnancy. Ninety-six women (20.9%) reported a protrusion along the midline of their abdomen. Significantly more women with protrusion reported weaker abdominal muscles than women without protrusion. The most frequent treatment women with protrusion reported were exercises for the abdominal muscles (92.6%). Mean score on the EDE-Q, shape concern questions, was higher in women with reported protrusion (mean score: 2.37 (SD 1.6) than women without protrusion (mean score: 2.14 (SD 1.4), p = 0.175.

conclusionPrimiparous women are concerned about abdominal appearance both during pregnancy and after birth. Those reporting abdominal protrusion are less satisfied with their abdominal appearance and they report weaker abdominal muscles than women without protrusion. This study may contribute to improved knowledge about women`s health concerns, and assessment of DRA should be part of routine follow-up of postpartum women.

Indexed as

Diastasis, MuscleRectus AbdominisAbdomenAbdominal MusclesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMuscle StrengthPostpartum PeriodPregnancyAppearanceDiastasis Recti AbdominisFunctionHealthPostpartum

Identifiers

PMID36324105
PMCPMC9632123
OpenAlexW4307923054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.