ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological Therapies for Pregnancy-Related Low Back and Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pregnancy-associated low back and pelvic pain is a common musculoskeletal condition associated with substantial pain, impaired mobility, and functional limitation during pregnancy. Pharmacologic pain management is constrained by maternal and fetal safety considerations, increasing reliance on conservative musculoskeletal interventions. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception through February 2026. Eligible studies included pregnant women with pregnancy-associated low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or mixed lumbopelvic pain syndromes receiving conservative musculoskeletal interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional disability assessed using validated instruments. Random-effects meta-analysis using standardized mean differences with Hedges g correction and 95% confidence intervals was performed. Results: Six randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, of which four studies involving 254 participants contributed directly extractable data for the primary quantitative meta-analyses. Conservative musculoskeletal interventions were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.53; P < 0.001; I² = 34%) and functional disability (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.37; P < 0.001; I² = 66%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated numerically larger pain effects for device-assisted interventions, followed by acupuncture-based and manual or manipulative approaches, although subgroup differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.26). One trial was judged at high risk of bias, while the remaining studies were classified as having some concerns. Conclusions: Conservative musculoskeletal interventions were associated with improvements in pain intensity and functional disability among women with pregnancy-associated low back and pelvic pain. However, limited trial numbers, methodological heterogeneity, and risk of bias constrain treatment-specific conclusions. Larger, adequately powered, methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to inform higher-confidence clinical recommendations.
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.