Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liddle SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7053516 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveAcupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during the pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during the pregnancy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe PubMed, EMBASE databases, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 15 January 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during the pregnancy were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. We assessed the confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain, functional status and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women. Overall, acupuncture significantly relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%) and improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%) and quality of life (MD=-8.89, 95% CI: (-11.90 to -5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%). There was a significant difference for overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference for analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during he study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks). Thus, prospective randomised clinical studies or clinical follow-up studies were hence desirable to further evaluate these outcomes.ConclusionsAcupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.Prospero registration numberCRD42021241771.
| S-EPMC9723856 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6778620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this study were (i) to investigate the potential influence of pre-pregnancy regular leisure-time physical activity (PA) on the risk of persistent LBPP half a year after pregnancy, and (ii) to explore the starting time and prevalence of PA among women experiencing LBPP during pregnancy, in relation to remission or persistent LBPP half a year after pregnancy.MethodsThis study is a follow-up study of 639 women who reported LBPP during pregnancy. These women were sent a questionnaire at approximately six months after delivery. The respondents were divided into three groups: 'no pain', 'recurrent pain', and 'continuous pain'. Data were analysed using an independent samples t-test, Pearson's chi-squared test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.Results44.5% of subjects reported current PA at six months post partum. The mean starting time of PA was 2.6 months post partum and the mean number of current, weekly events of PA was 3.4; there were no differences between the groups. 82.2% reported previous PA at some period in life. Women with BMI >/= 30 reported current PA to a lesser extent. The number of years of pre-pregnancy PA did not influence the risk of persistent LBPP.ConclusionAlmost half of women who had experienced LBPP during pregnancy reported PA at six months post partum. The number of years of pre-pregnancy PA did not influence the risk of persistent LBPP. Obesity was a risk factor for not practising PA.
| S-EPMC2630950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for pelvic girdle and low back pain (PGLBP) during pregnancy.DesignPragmatic-open-label randomised controlled trial.SettingFive maternity hospitals.PopulationPregnant women with PGLBP.Method1:1 randomization to standard care or standard care plus acupuncture (5 sessions by an acupuncturist midwife).Main outcome measureEfficacy: proportion of days with self-assessed pain by numerical rating scale (NRS) ≤ 4/10. Cost effectiveness (societal viewpoint, time horizon: pregnancy): incremental cost per days with NRS ≤ 4/10. Indirect non-healthcare costs included daily compensations for sick leave and productivity loss caused by absenteeism or presenteeism.Results96 women were allocated to acupuncture and 103 to standard care (total 199). The proportion of days with NRS ≤ 4/10 was greater in the acupuncture group than in the standard care group (61% vs 48%, p = 0.007). The mean Oswestry disability score was lower in the acupuncture group than with standard care alone (33 versus 38, Δ = 5, 95% CI: 0.8 to 9, p = 0.02). Average total costs were higher in the control group (€2947) than in the acupuncture group (€2635, Δ = -€312, 95% CI: -966 to +325), resulting from the higher indirect costs of absenteeism and presenteeism. Acupuncture was a dominant strategy when both healthcare and non-healthcare costs were included. Costs for the health system (employer and out-of-pocket costs excluded) were slightly higher for acupuncture (€1512 versus €1452, Δ = €60, 95% CI: -272 to +470).ConclusionAcupuncture was a dominant strategy when accounting for employer costs. A 100% probability of cost-effectiveness was obtained for a willingness to pay of €100 per days with pain NRS ≤ 4.
| S-EPMC6476478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although poor standing posture is a known cause of low back pain, the mechanisms involved are unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the kinetic and posture angle features of standing posture that might influence low back pain. METHODS:Sixty-seven young men were enrolled in this cross-sectional case-control study and were categorized according to whether they did or did not have low back pain. Habitual standing posture was assessed in each group, using a three-dimensional motion analysis system, force plates, and a spinal mouse. Kinetic and posture angle factors were compared between participants with and without low back pain. The relationship between specific features of standing posture and low back pain was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS:The intervertebral disc compressive force and the low back moment were significantly greater in the group with low back pain than in the group without low back pain. The intervertebral disc compressive force was the factor most strongly associated with low back pain during static standing. CONCLUSIONS:Logistic regression analysis identified intervertebral disc compressive force as an independent variable associated with low back pain. This finding suggests that increased intervertebral disc compressive force may promote development of low back pain in standing posture.
| S-EPMC6298701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent evidence suggests that physical therapy interventions targeting the hips may improve outcomes, including pain and disability, for patients with low back pain (LBP). Currently, there is conflicting data in regard to whether an individual with LBP needs to have a concurrent hip impairment in order to respond to this approach. The purpose of this clinical trial will be to determine the short and long-term effectiveness of physical therapy interventions directed at the lumbar spine only, versus lumbar spine and hip(s), in individuals with a primary complaint of LBP with a concurrent hip impairment. METHODS:A multi-center, randomized controlled trial of 76 adult individuals with a primary complaint of LBP, who also have at least one concurrent hip impairment. Participants will be randomized into the 'LBP only' or 'LBP+Hip' group. Treatment to the low back in both groups will be a pragmatic approach consisting of interventions targeting the low back without targeting the hip(s). Participants randomized to the LBP+Hip group will also receive a semi-prescriptive set of manual therapy and exercise techniques that target the hips. The primary outcome measures will be the modified Oswestry Disability Index and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale at discharge. DISCUSSION:These two treatment strategies are commonly utilized in physical therapy practice, but there is uncertainty which is superior. This trial will also help to provide a better understanding of the role of concurrent hip impairments in LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial has been prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID# NCT03550014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03550014) on June 7, 2018.
| S-EPMC6157455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBack pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context.MethodsWe will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021232469.
| S-EPMC8406587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the development of pressure ulcers has been suggested by several studies, but the results have been inconsistent.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.Search methodsIn March 2014, for this first update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, which measured the incidence of new ulcers, ulcer healing or changes in pressure ulcer severity. There were no restrictions on types of patient, setting, date, publication status or language.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.Main resultsWe included 23 RCTs, many were small (between 9 and 4023 participants, median 88) and at high risk of bias.Eleven trials compared a combination of nutritional supplements, consisting of a minimum of energy and protein in different dosages, for the prevention of pressure ulcers. A meta-analysis of eight trials (6062 participants) that compared the effects of mixed nutritional supplements with standard hospital diet found no clear evidence of an effect of supplementation on pressure ulcer development (pooled RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; P value 0.05; I(2) = 13%, random effects). This outcome is at unclear or high risk of bias.Fourteen trials evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the healing of existing pressure ulcers: seven trials examined mixed nutritional supplements, three the effects of proteins, two trials examined zinc, and two studies examined ascorbic acid. The included trials were heterogeneous with regard to participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes and meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was no clear evidence of an improvement in pressure ulcer healing from the nutritional supplements evaluated in any of these individual studies.Authors' conclusionsThere is currently no clear evidence of a benefit associated with nutritional interventions for either the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Further trials of high methodological quality are necessary.
| S-EPMC9736772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Children with cancer experience significant pain and anxiety during needle-based procedures. Undertreated pain in children has long-lasting consequences and reduces the efficacy of subsequent analgesic efforts. A validated quality improvement (QI) intervention, known as the "Children's Comfort Promise", includes (1) topical anesthetics, (2) sucrose or breastfeeding for infants, (3) comfort positioning, and (4) distraction techniques, and has been shown to be highly effective in decreasing procedural pain and anxiety in children. However, there is limited data about the adoption, adaptation, and implementation of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A QI pilot project utilizing the Model for Improvement of the "Global Comfort Promise" was implemented in four global pediatric cancer hospitals (Lima, Peru; Barretos, Brazil; Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; and Manila, Philippines). Between August 2021 and January 2023, the pilot sites identified a specific aim, co-designed the measurement strategy with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and adopted, adapted, and implemented the project at their individual sites. Results: A total of 2,185 different procedures were recorded in the first year of implementation. Most patients were less than 10 years old (60.5%) and solid tumors (37.9%) were the most common diagnosis. Overall, healthcare professionals (98.3%) were satisfied with the procedures. Parents and patients reported that only 33.7% of patients experienced pain during the procedure. All (100%) parents and patients felt the healthcare teams adequately addressed their child's pain. Median self-reported adherence to ≥2 interventions was 98.0%. Challenges to the implementation of the QI initiative included lack of training, turnover of the medical staff, maintaining staff enthusiasm, and access to topical anesthetics. Each site had unique change ideas to implement the initiative. Conclusions: This multi-site, multi-country QI initiative was feasible and was successfully adopted, adapted, and implemented in the LMIC context to improve procedural pain in children (Global Comfort Promise). Additionally, this intervention resulted in high satisfaction of both healthcare professionals and patients/families. Further work is needed to overcome the challenges of topical anesthetic access and education of the workforce. Additional plans include modifying the Global Comfort Promise to include high-quality communication and expanding to additional sites with further refinement of the implementation strategy.
| S-EPMC10931017 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7043272 | biostudies-literature