Dataset Information

Prevalence of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Lumbopelvic pain (LPP) is common in pregnant women and has a significant negative effect on physical and psychological health. In this study, for the first time, we conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the overall prevalence of LPP among pregnant women and clarify the reasons for the differences in the estimated results.

Material and methods

A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was conducted from inception until October 2022. Two reviewers conducted a methodological quality assessment. Random-effects model analysis was used to estimate the pooled prevalence and the 95% confidence interval. Chi-square tests and I² -values were used to assess the heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis (according to the participants' continent, age, body mass index [BMI], gestational age and study risk of bias), sensitivity analysis and random-effects meta-regression were used to explore the the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Of the 1661 unique citations, 38 studies (21 533 pregnant participants) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of LPP during pregnancy was 63% (95% CI: 0.57 to 0.69), with significant heterogeneity (I² = 99.1%, P < 0.001). The prevalence differed by participants' continents, 71% (North America), 74% (South America), 63% (Asia), 64% (Europe), 59% (Africa) and 45% (Oceania). The prevalence differed by BMI, 64% (BMI <25), 64% (25 ≤ BMI ≤ 28), and 71% (BMI >28). The prevalence differed by age, 72% (age <25 years), 58% (25 ≤ age ≤ 30 years), and 69% (age >30 years). The prevalence were the same differed by study risk of bias, 63% (both low and moderate risk of bias studies). The prevalence were similar by gestational age, 62% (second trimester) and 63% (third trimester).

Conclusions

Lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy is common; about three-fifths of pregnant women experience LPP. More prevention and intervention research for lumbopelvic should be conducted in pregnant women with different clinical characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Shanshan H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10823407 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

Shanshan Hong H Liying Chen C Huihong Zhuang Z Yanting Wang W Tiantian Lin L Tong Jin J Jiawei Qin Q

Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 20231123 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Lumbopelvic pain (LPP) is common in pregnant women and has a significant negative effect on physical and psychological health. In this study, for the first time, we conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the overall prevalence of LPP among pregnant women and clarify the reasons for the differences in the estimated results.<h4>Material and methods</h4>A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was con ...[more]

PMID: 37997035

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain is a frequently reported musculoskeletal disorder, but few studies have compared data between countries.ObjectivesExamine prevalence, severity, and sick leave and explore potential risk factors associated with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in Italian women and compare the results to a similar study in Norway, utilizing the same questionnaire.DesignCross-sectional.MethodsItalian (n = 481) and Norwegian women (n = 435) were allocated from two public hospitals in Rome (Fatebenefratelli San Giovanni Calibita-Isola Tiberina) and Oslo (Oslo University Hospital), as well as four antenatal clinics in Modena (Italy). The questionnaire was completed between gestation weeks 32 and 36, addressing women's experiences of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain and sick leave in current week, and retrospectively for prepregnancy, first and second trimesters.ResultsIn Italy and Norway, 39% and 57% of pregnant women reported pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain, respectively, with 11% and 25% experiencing severe pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain. Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain was associated with sick leave in Norway (p < 0.01), but not in Italy (p = 0.66) at late gestation. In both countries, women with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain versus those with no pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain were more likely to be multiparous (Italy: 40% versus 31%, p = 0.06 and Norway: 53% versus 38%, p < 0.01), and have gestational weight gain above guidelines (Italy: 21% versus 13%, p = 0.02% and Norway: 27% versus 14%, p < 0.01) and previous experience of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (Italy: 15% versus 2%, p < 0.01 and Norway: 31% versus 4%, p < 0.01). Maternal exercise (⩾2 times weekly) was associated with less pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (Italy: odds ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-1.0, p = 0.05 and Norway: odds ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-1.0, p = 0.06).ConclusionWe observed high rates of pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain in Italy and Norway, with Norwegian women reporting the highest prevalence and severity level. While both countries had similar rates of sick leave in late gestation, an association between pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain and sick leave was observed among Norwegian women only. Health care providers should be proactive in addressing pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain through open communication and seeking input from pregnant individuals. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the current evidence on effective treatments remains limited and inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research in this field.

Project description:Background:Pelvic girdle pain is a common problem during pregnancy and postpartum with significant personal and societal impact and costs. Studies examining the effectiveness of interventions for pelvic girdle pain measure different outcomes, making it difficult to pool data in meta-analysis in a meaningful and interpretable way to increase the certainty of effect measures. A consensus-based core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain can address this issue. As a first step in developing a core outcome set, it is essential to systematically examine the outcomes measured in existing studies. Objective:The objective of this systematic review was to identify, examine and compare what outcomes are measured and reported, and how outcomes are measured, in intervention studies and systematic reviews of interventions for pelvic girdle pain and for lumbopelvic pain (which includes pelvic girdle pain). Methods:We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro and Embase from inception to the 11th May 2018. Two reviewers independently selected studies by title/abstract and by full text screening. Disagreement was resolved through discussion. Outcomes reported and their outcome measurement instruments were extracted and recorded by two reviewers independently. We assessed the quality of reporting with two independent reviewers. The outcomes were grouped into core domains using the OMERACT filter 2.0 framework. Results:A total of 107 studies were included, including 33 studies on pelvic girdle pain and 74 studies on lumbopelvic pain. Forty-six outcomes were reported across all studies, with the highest amount (26/46) in the 'life impact' domain. 'Pain' was the most commonly reported outcome in both pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain studies. Studies used different instruments to measure the same outcomes, particularly for the outcomes pain, function, disability and quality of life. Conclusions:A wide variety of outcomes and outcome measurements are used in studies on pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain. The findings of this review will be included in a Delphi survey to reach consensus on a pelvic girdle pain - core outcome set. This core outcome set will allow for more effective comparison between future studies on pelvic girdle pain, allowing for more effective translation of findings to clinical practice. Supplementary information:Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12998-019-0279-2.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the well-known short-term and long-term ill effects of elevated blood pressure in children and adolescents, pooled data on its burden among Indian adolescents have not yet been synthesized.ObjectivesWe did a systematic review with meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescents (10-19 years) in India.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and IndMed, and included cross-sectional studies reporting data on hypertension prevalence among 10 to19 years old and published in English language from their inception till 1st March 2020. Modified New castle Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias based on research design, recruitment strategy, response rate and reliability of outcome determination. A random effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence, and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q statistic test of heterogeneity and I2 statistic. To explore the heterogeneity, we did a meta-regression, and sub-group analyses based on region, study setting and number of blood pressure readings.ResultsOut of 25 studies (pooled sample of 27,682 participants) six studies were of high, eighteen of moderate, and one was of low quality. The prevalence of hypertension across studies ranged from 2% to 20.5%, with a pooled estimate of 7.6% (95% CI: 6.1 to 9.1%), I2 = 96.6% (p-value <0.001). Sub-group analysis restricted only to the western India demonstrated a smaller heterogeneity (I2 = 18.3%). In univariate model of meta-regression, diagnostic criteria was significantly associated with pooled prevalence (-4.33, 95%CI: -7.532, -1.134).ConclusionThe pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescent in India is 7.6% with substantial heterogeneity between the studies. To tackle the high prevalence of hypertension among adolescents, early detection by screening under school health programme and opportunistic screening at Paediatric OPD should be implemented by Policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) before and during pregnancy is associated with a broad range of adverse health outcomes. Describing the extent and the evolution of IPV is a crucial step in developing interventions to reduce the health impact of IPV.The objectives are to study the prevalence of psychological abuse, as well as physical & sexual violence, and to provide insight into the evolution of IPV 12 months before and during pregnancy.MethodsBetween June 2010 and October 2012, a cross-sectional study was conducted in 11 antenatal care clinics in Belgium. Consenting pregnant women were asked to complete a questionnaire (available in Dutch, French and English) in a separate room. Ethical clearance was obtained in all participating hospitals.ResultsThe overall percentage of IPV was 14.3% (95% CI: 12.7 - 16.0) 12 months before pregnancy and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.2 - 12.1) during pregnancy. Physical partner violence before as well as during pregnancy was reported by 2.5% (95% CI: 1.7 - 3.3) of the respondents (n = 1894), sexual violence by 0.9% (95% CI 0.5 - 1.4), and psychological abuse by 14.9% (95% CI: 13.3 - 16.7). Risk factors identified for IPV were being single or divorced, having a low level of education, and choosing another language than Dutch to fill out the questionnaire. The adjusted analysis showed that physical partner violence (aOR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.56) and psychological partner abuse (aOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.63 - 0.79) were significantly lower during pregnancy compared to the period of 12 months before pregnancy. The difference between both time periods is greater for physical partner violence (65%) compared to psychological partner abuse (30%). The analysis of the frequency data showed a similarly significant evolution for physical partner violence and psychological partner abuse, but not for sexual violence.ConclusionThe IPV prevalence rates in our study are slightly lower than what can be found in other Western studies, but even so IPV is to be considered a prevalent problem before and during pregnancy. We found evidence, however, that physical partner violence and psychological partner abuse are significantly lower during pregnancy.

Dataset Information

Prevalence of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prevalence of lumbopelvic pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets