Skip Navigation LinksHome > July 2004 - Volume 104 - Issue 1 > Low Back Pain During Pregnancy: Prevalence, Risk Factors, an...
Obstetrics & Gynecology:
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000129403.54061.0e
Original Research

Low Back Pain During Pregnancy: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes

Wang, Shu-Ming MD; Dezinno, Peggy RN, BSN; Maranets, Inna MD; Berman, Michael R. MD; Caldwell-Andrews, Alison A. PhD; Kain, Zeev N. MD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Departments of Anesthesiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and Women's Education Life Learning Center at Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.

Received December 10, 2003. Received in revised form February 18, 2004. Accepted March 26, 2004.

* A copy of the entire questionnaire used in this study is available upon request.

This study was supported by the Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine.

Address reprint requests to: Shu-Ming Wang, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, P.O. Box 208051, New Haven, CT 06520-8051; e-mail: shu-ming.wang@yale.edu.

Collapse Box

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the severity of the low back pain (LBP) during pregnancy, including prevalence, risk factors, impact on daily living, and health provider management.

METHODS: An anonymous survey consisting of 36 questions was distributed to pregnant women participating in various prenatal care clinics and educational classes in New Haven County, Connecticut. A total of 950 surveys was returned from May 2002 through October 2003. At each site, a researcher was available each week to answer questions and gather surveys.

RESULTS: Six hundred forty-five (68.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 65–72%) respondents reported experiencing LBP during their current pregnancy. The prevalence was not affected by gestational age (P = .56). Low back pain during the current pregnancy was predicted by age (younger women were more likely to develop it; P = .004), history of LBP without pregnancy (P = .002), during menstruation (P = .01), and during a previous pregnancy (P = .002). The majority of respondents reported that LBP during pregnancy caused sleep disturbances (58%; 95% CI 54–62%) and impaired daily living (57%; 95% CI 53–62%). Average pain was moderate in severity. Nearly 30% of respondents stopped performing at least one daily activity because of pain and reported that pain also impaired the performance of other routine tasks. Only 32% (95% CI 28–36%) of the respondents with LBP during pregnancy informed their prenatal care providers of this problem, and only 25% (95% CI 21–28%) of prenatal care providers recommended a treatment.

CONCLUSION: Low back pain during pregnancy is a common problem that causes hardship in this population. Further studies are indicated in the areas of prevention and treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause for all physician office visits in the United States.1 Data from other countries (eg, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Australia), indicate that LBP is a common problem during pregnancy.2–4 In fact, it is estimated that at least 80% of the population will experience LBP at some point in their lives.1,5 Although most people with LBP symptoms resume normal activities within a few days, some individuals experience progressively worsening LBP, such that their routine activities are limited.6,7 Symptoms of LBP are reported by men and women alike.1 A Swedish survey reports that 66% of women between the ages of 38 and 64 years experience LBP.8 Interestingly, the majority of these women reported that their first episode of LBP occurred during a pregnancy period.9–11 Several other studies also indicate that women with severe LBP during pregnancy are at extremely high risk for developing a new episode of severe LBP during a subsequent pregnancy as well as later in life.4,12,13 Many women report that LBP not only compromises their ability to work during pregnancy but also interferes with activities of daily living.12,14

Interestingly, despite the growing recognition of the importance of LBP during pregnancy, there is a paucity of data regarding the prevalence and severity of this problem in the United States. A search on MEDLINE with key words “low back pain,” “back pain,” “pregnancy,” “abdominal pregnancy,” “pregnancy complication,” “pregnancy maintenance,” and “pregnancy high risk” (1966–March 2004) was conducted. After combining all searches together, 320 articles were identified. We then examined these 320 articles individually and found only one study that focused on the prevalence and severity of LBP during pregnancy. That study was a small-scale retrospective study reporting that 56% of 200 women in a New York hospital suffered from LBP during pregnancy.15 We are unaware of any other studies that are designed to determine the prevalence of LBP during pregnancy among women in the United States. We therefore designed a detailed survey that was administered to pregnant women in New Haven County, Connecticut. The aims of this survey were to determine the prevalence, risk factors, and the impact of LBP in pregnant women who live in New Haven County.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Respondents to our survey were pregnant women who were attending various antenatal clinics in New Haven County, Connecticut. These clinics included those directed at the indigent population as well as antenatal clinics located at the offices of private obstetricians and midwives. Also, subjects were recruited from various prenatal educational programs sponsored by Yale-New Haven Hospital and The Hospital of Saint Raphael, as well as other private health care organizations in New Haven County.

Data for this study were collected between May 2002 and October 2003.

The questionnaire used in this survey was developed by our study group based on input from prenatal care providers, pregnant women, and a literature search concerning LBP during pregnancy.

The initial version of the questionnaire* consisted of 40 items regarding demographic and baseline characteristics of respondents, recreational habits, history of LBP before and during pregnancy, and the effect of LBP on daily living. During the pilot phase of the study, the questionnaire was pretested by 50 pregnant women and subsequently revised based on analysis of their responses. The final version of the revised questionnaire comprised 36 questions, including the domains listed below:

* Demographic data regarding the participants: age, ethnicity, education, income, number of pregnancies, medications taken, and preexisting medical conditions.

* Respondents’ past experiences with LBP (during previous pregnancies, during menstruation, before pregnancy) and LBP during the current pregnancy.

* Assessment of potential risk factors for LBP.

* For participants who suffered LBP during pregnancy, questions about the location of the pain, its nature, and factors that aggravated the pain.

* Impact of LBP on the activity of daily living as assessed by a validated scale (Daily Disability Index).16 The Daily Disability Index consists of 12 visual analogue scales designated for 12 common daily activities. Scores range from “no difficulty” (score of 0) to “extreme difficulty” (score of 100).

* Time taken off from work, financial impact of LBP in pregnancy, and questions about whether the women disclosed the existence of LBP to their prenatal care providers and the prenatal care providers’ management recommendations.

The survey was also translated into Spanish for use with Spanish-speaking women.

In every location, there was one research assistant who was responsible for distributing and collecting the surveys and answering any questions by potential respondents. All women were instructed to complete the questionnaire only once. Research assistants who attended clinics with significant Hispanic populations spoke Spanish. Research assistants were trained by the principal investigator (S.-M.W.) before the study commenced. All women were notified that anonymity of responses was assured and that the study was approved by the Investigational Committee of Yale-New Haven Hospital and The Hospital of Saint Raphael. Throughout the study period, the principal investigator was in constant contact with the research assistants in each location to direct the survey and address any problems.

Data were analyzed with SPSS 10.1 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Demographic data are summarized as the mean and standard deviation for continuous data and frequency for categorical data. For each item in the questionnaire, we computed frequency or mean response with standard deviation (SD). Categorical items were analyzed using χ2 analysis. A logistic regression analysis was constructed in which the outcome was the presence or absence of LBP during pregnancy, and predictors included variables selected based on univariate analysis. The final models were limited to significant predictors of LBP. Significance level was accepted at P < .05.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Of the total of 1,131 surveys distributed in the various clinics and activities, 950 surveys were returned (84%). Demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. Respondents were 31.5 ± 4.8 years of age (range 16–46 years), most were in their third trimester (75.1%), and few were in their first trimester (0.4%). The majority of respondents were in their first (61.9%) or second (23.9%) pregnancy. Most of these pregnant women (79.6%) were in good health without any pre-existing medical condition; 19% were taking medications prescribed by their physicians and 2% of respondents were taking over-the-counter medication.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

The majority of respondents (68.5%; 95% CI 65–71%) reported having LBP during the current pregnancy. The prevalence of LBP during pregnancy in this sample was not affected by gestational age (P = .56); however, demographic characteristics of this sample were skewed toward women in their third trimester. Of respondents with LBP during pregnancy, 41.4% (95% CI 37–45%) reported that the first occurrence ever of any lower back pain occurred during this pregnancy. The duration of LBP among the respondents ranged from one day to the entire pregnancy. Approximately 4% (95% CI 2–6%) of the women reported constant LBP for 1 week in duration and 10% (95% CI 8–12%) of the women report constant pain for 2 weeks in duration. Please refer to Figure 1 for a detailed description of the duration of pain symptoms.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools

Pain was reported as occurring in the upper back, the lower back, and the upper and lower back (Table 2). Pain was described as a pulling sensation (20.9%; 95% CI 16–25%), followed by descriptions of shooting sensations (17.1%; 95% CI 13–21%), aching sensations (7.2%; 95% CI 4–10%), and a combination of 2 or more sensations (45.2%; 95% CI 40–50%). Among all women with LBP, 56% (95% CI 51–61%) reported that the standing position aggravated their pain, followed by the sitting position (47.2%; 95% CI 42–52%), bending position (42.4%; 95% CI 37–46%), lying position (36%; 95% CI 31–41%), and walking position (34%; 95% CI 29–39%).

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

Of women with current LBP, 37% reported LBP before pregnancy, 36.2% reported LBP during a menstrual period, and 21.9% reported LBP during previous pregnancy. The likelihood of a pregnant woman experiencing LBP decreased with age (P = .004). That is, 90% (95% CI 100–80%) of women under the age of 20 years reported LBP, compared with 67% (95% CI 61–71%) of women between the ages of 20 and 30 years, 61% (95% CI 57–65%) of women between 31 and 40 years, and 45% (95% CI 27–63%) of women older than 41 years. In addition, history of LBP without pregnancy (P = .002), LBP during menstruation (P = .01), and LBP during a previous pregnancy (P = .002) also contributes to the development of LBP during current prenancy. A significantly larger proportion of African-American women (89.3%; 95% CI 80–98%) experienced LBP compared with women of other ethnicities (60.5–62.7%; P = .037).

Other potential risk factors in the literature were analyzed and found to be nonsignificant. That is, birth control pill usage (P = .29), history of infertility with hormone therapy (P = .63), caffeine usage during pregnancy (P = .57), smoking during pregnancy (P = .12), physical exercise before pregnancy (P = .18), previous spinal or epidural anesthesia (P = .45), repetitive daily activities (P = .43), prepregnancy body weight (P = .762), and number of pregnancies (P = .20) were not significant predictors of LBP.

We conducted a logistic regression model in which the outcome was the presence or absence of LBP during current pregnancy. We found that LBP during a previous pregnancy (odds ratio 5.7; 95% CI 2.9–11.2), LBP during menstruation (odds ratio 2.5; 95% CI 1.1–6.4), and history of non–pregnancy-related LBP (odds ratio 4; 95% CI 1.7–9.4) were independent predictors for the existence of LBP during pregnancy.

Over half (58%; 95% CI 54–62%) of women with LBP reported sleep disturbances secondary to the pain. The average severity of pain (visual analog scale) reported by the respondents was 45.6 ± 26 (range 8–100; please refer to a detailed distribution presented in Fig. 2). A similar number (57%; 95% CI 53–62%) complained that LBP impaired their daily activities. When assessing the activities of daily living, many women who reported LBP (49%; 95% CI 44–53%) avoided “performing tasks that caused them the greatest difficulty such as climbing stairs” (46.7%; 95% CI 42–51%), “running” (39.7%; 95% CI 35–44%), “heavy work” (28.2%; 95% CI 24–31%), “lifting heavy objects” (28.2%; 95% CI 24–31%), and “participating in exercise” (30.5%; 95% CI 27–35%). The average daily disability index rating was 39.5 ± 22, indicating that respondents with LBP experienced a moderate level of disability related to LBP. Finally, 10.6% (95% CI 8–14%) of all respondents with LBP were forced to take time off from work because of LBP symptoms.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Image Tools

Only 32% (95% CI 28–36%) of women with symptoms of LBP reported these symptoms to their prenatal care providers. Interestingly, these respondents who discussed their symptoms with their care providers reported that 75% (95% CI 71–79%) of prenatal care providers did not recommend any treatment to manage symptoms. The most common suggestions provided by the 25% of prenatal care providers who did make management recommendations were stretching/exercise (10.4%; 95% CI 8–12%), frequent rest (9.8%; 95% CI 8–12%), cold and hot compress (8.7%, 95% CI 7–11%), a supportive belt (3.8%; 95% CI 2–6%), and combinations of therapies from various complementary and allopathic treatments (eg, acetaminophen, massage, acupuncture, chiropractic/osteopathy, aromatherapy, relaxation, herbs, yoga, and Reiki) (13.6%; 95% CI 11–17%).

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

Our results showed that LBP remains a common problem in women during pregnancy. Based on data collected from the Office of Planning and Development at Yale-New Haven Hospital, the number of births in New Haven County numbered approximately 10,000 for the years 2002 and 2003. We calculate that our survey therefore captured nearly one tenth of the population of pregnant women in New Haven County. Therefore, we estimate that 68.6% (95% CI 65.1–72.1%) of women experience LBP during pregnancy.

We found that LBP can start at any point during pregnancy and that significant predictors for the presence of LBP are age, LBP during menstruation, previous history of back pain, and previous LBP during pregnancy. We also found that the majority of patients do not disclose LBP symptoms to their prenatal care providers and that when LBP is reported, most women report that prenatal care providers do not provide management recommendations for LBP symptoms.

The prevalence of LBP during pregnancy found in our study (68.6%) is similar to the prevalence reported in Scandinavia and Sweden,11,17 but is higher than that reported in the smaller, retrospective, 1987 study.15 Potential reasons for this difference include survey design (cross-sectional versus retrospective, based on recall), the relatively small number of cases in the previous survey study, and regional differences (Brooklyn, New York versus New Haven, Connecticut). In contrast to the existing literature that indicates that LBP mainly occurs primarily during the first 5–7 months of pregnancy,15 we found that LBP may be present at any time during pregnancy. As documented in the literature, we also confirmed that the following variables do not contribute to the development of LBP during pregnancy: use of birth control pills, history of infertility accompanied by hormone therapy, caffeine use, smoking, physical exercise, previous spinal or epidural anesthesia, repetitive daily activities, prepregnancy body weight, and number of pregnancies.18–23 In addition, history of back pain,21 LBP during menstruation, and previous pregnancy-induced LBP21 were significant risk factors for the development of LBP in the current pregnancy.

As the structure of the society changes, LBP in pregnancy extends its negative impact across many areas of women's daily lives, including work, household responsibilities, leisure activities, and sleep. In our sample, nearly 60% of women with LBP indicated that this pain affects their ability to sleep and perform daily activities, and 10.6% of women reported taking time off from work because of LBP. The existing literature supports LBP as the leading reason for taking sick leave for pregnant, working women.14

Our results also show that the pain ranged from mild to severe; on average, respondents reported that LBP was moderate in severity. Nearly 30% of these women with LBP reported that they had to stop at least one daily activity because of LBP. For all other daily activities, they reported mild-to-severe degrees of difficulty because of LBP.

In the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, treatment for LBP during pregnancy frequently includes patient education about LBP, education regarding posture and body mechanics from the first trimester, information about mechanical supports such as type of pillow to use while sleeping, and physiotherapy.24 In the United States, however, most prenatal care clinicians instruct women to accept LBP as a normal part of pregnancy.14 Therefore, it is not surprising that we found that only 32% of the women in our sample had revealed the existence of LBP to their prenatal care providers and that only 25% of these prenatal care providers addressed this problem and provided recommendation to these women.

In conclusion, the data clearly indicate that LBP during pregnancy is a common problem that should not be ignored. At the present time, however, most women fail to report LBP to the prenatal care provider, and most prenatal care providers fail to treat LBP. Future studies should examine the antecedents of prenatal care providers’ failure to treat LBP and examine further the relationship between ethnicity and LBP. In addition, future studies should consider including a wider variety of geographical regions. Finally, the results of this survey underscore the fact that many pregnant women suffer significant pain that is left untreated. This pain impacts not only the individual woman but also adversely affects those she cares for by limiting her daily activities, as well as adversely impacting her work productivity. We call upon researchers to contribute to improving womens’ health through research focused on the prevention and treatment of lower back pain during pregnancy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC. Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U. S. national survey. Spine 1995;20:11–9.

2. Foti T, Davids JR, Bagley A. A biomechanical analysis of gait during pregnancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:625–32.

3. Noren L, Ostgaard S, Nielsen TF, Ostgaard HC. Reduction of sick leave for lumbar back and posterior pelvic pain in pregnancy. Spine 1997;22:2157–60.

4. Ostgaard HC, Andersson GB. Previous back pain and risk of developing back pain in future pregnancy. Spine 1991;16:432–6.

5. Frymoyer JW, Pope MH, Costanza MC, Rosen JC, Goggin JE, Wilder DG. Epidemiological studies of low-back pain. Spine 1980;5:419–23.

6. Biering-Sorensen F. A prospective study of low back pain in a general population. I. Occurrence, recurrence, and aetiology. Scan J Rehabil Med 1983;15:71–9.

7. Nagi SG, Riley LE, Newby LG. A social epidemiology of back pain in a general population. J Chronic Dis 1973;26:769–79.

8. Biering-Sorensen F. Low back trouble in a general population of 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old men and women: study design, representativeness, and basic results. Dan Med Bull 1982;29:289–99.

9. Svensson HO, Andersson GB, Hagstad A, Jansson PO. The relationship of low-back pain to pregnancy and gynecologic factors. Spine 1990;15:371–5.

10. Orvieto R, Achiron A, Ben-Rafael Z, Gelernter I, Achiron R. Low-back pain of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 1994;73:209–14.

11. Berg G, Hammar M, Moller-Nielsen J, Linden U, Thorblad J. Low back pain during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:71–5.

12. Ostgaard HC, Zetherstrom G, Roose-Hansson E. Back pain in relation to pregnancy: a 6-year follow-up. Spine 1997;22:2945–50.

13. Noren L, Ostgaard S, Johansson G, Ostgaard HC. Lumbar back and posterior pelvic pain during pregnancy: a 3-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2002;11:267–71.

14. DeJoseph JF, Cragin L. Biomedical and feminist perspectives on low back pain during pregnancy. Nurs Clin North Am 1998;33:713–24.

15. Fast A, Shapiro D, Ducommun EJ, Friedmann LW, Bouklas T, Floman Y. Low-back pain in pregnancy. Spine 1987;12:368–71.

16. Salen BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R. The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1423–35.

17. Ostgaard HC, Andersson GB, Karlsson K. Prevalence of back pain in pregnancy. Spine 1991;16:549–52.

18. Leboeuf-Yde C. Body weight and low back pain: a systematic literature review of 56 journal articles reporting on 65 epidemiologic studies. Spine 2000;25:226–37.

19. Howell CJ, Dean T, Lucking L, Dziedzic K, Jones PW, Johanson RB. Randomised study of long term outcome after epidural versus non-epidural analgesia during labour [published erratum appears in BMJ 2002;325:580]. BMJ 2002;325:357.

20. Brynhildsen J, Lennartsson H, Klemetz M, Dahlquist P, Hedin B, Hammar M. Oral contraceptive use among female elite athletes and age-matched controls and its relation to low back pain. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 1997;76:873–8.

21. Brynhildsen J, Hansson A, Persson A, Hammar M. Follow-up of patients with low back pain during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:182–6.

22. Brynhildsen J, Bjors E, Skarsgard C, Hammar ML. Is hormone replacement therapy a risk factor for low back pain among postmenopausal women? Spine 1998;23:809–13.

23. Stapleton DB, MacLennan AH, Kristiansson P. The prevalence of recalled low back pain during and after pregnancy: a South Australian population survey. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;42:482–5.

24. MacEvilly M, Buggy D. Back pain and pregnancy: a review. Pain 1996;64:405–14.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 34 time(s).

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy
Pennick, V; Liddle, SD
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (8): -.
10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub3
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
A randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal intervention and standard obstetrics care for low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy
George, JW; Skaggs, CD; Thompson, PA; Nelson, DM; Gavard, JA; Gross, GA
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 208(4): -.
ARTN 295.e1
CrossRef
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Health Issues and the Practicing Radiologist: Defining Concepts and Developing Recommendations for Leave Options and Policies
Heilbrun, ME; Bender, CE; Truong, HB; Bluth, EI
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 10(9): 695-701.
10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.009
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Clinical guidelines for occupational lifting in pregnancy: evidence summary and provisional recommendations
MacDonald, LA; Waters, TR; Napolitano, PG; Goddard, DE; Ryan, MA; Nielsen, P; Hudock, SD
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 209(2): 80-88.
10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.047
CrossRef
European Spine Journal
Predictors for long-term disability in women with persistent postpartum pelvic girdle pain
Sjodahl, J; Gutke, A; Oberg, B
European Spine Journal, 22(7): 1665-1673.
10.1007/s00586-013-2716-6
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Acupuncture for pelvic and back pain in pregnancy: a systematic review
Ee, CC; Manheimer, E; Pirotta, MV; White, AR
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(3): 254-259.
10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.008
CrossRef
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Smoking and pregnancy-related pelvic pain
Biering, K; Nohr, EA; Olsen, J; Hjollund, NH; Andersen, AMN; Juhl, M
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 117(8): 1019-1026.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02591.x
CrossRef
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Back Pain Symptoms and Bone Mineral Density Changes in Pregnancy as Measured by Quantitative Ultrasound
To, WWK; Wong, MWN
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 67(1): 36-41.
10.1159/000158650
CrossRef
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing
The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Yoga During Pregnancy on Maternal Psychological and Physical Distress
Beddoe, AE; Yang, CPP; Kennedy, HP; Weiss, SJ; Lee, KA
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 38(3): 310-319.
10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01023.x
CrossRef
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Back and pelvic pain in an underserved United States pregnant population: A preliminary descriptive survey
Skaggs, CD; Prather, H; Gross, G; George, JW; Thompson, PA; Nelson, DM
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 30(2): 130-134.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.008
CrossRef
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain
One-year prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal pain in a large adult Norwegian county population: Relations with age and gender - The HUNT Study
Svebak, S; Hagen, K; Zwart, JA
Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain, 14(1): 21-28.
10.1300/J094v14n01_04
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Osteopathic manipulative treatment of back pain and related symptoms during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial
Licciardone, JC; Buchanan, S; Hensel, KL; King, HH; Fulda, KG; Stoll, ST
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 202(1): -.
ARTN 43.e1
CrossRef
Industrial Health
Menstrual Disorders and their Influence on Low Back Pain among Japanese Nurses
Smith, DR; Mihashi, M; Adachi, Y; Shouyama, Y; Mouri, F; Ishibashi, N; Ishitake, T
Industrial Health, 47(3): 301-312.

International Urogynecology Journal
Is there a relationship between parity, pregnancy, back pain and incontinence?
Smith, MD; Russell, A; Hodges, PW
International Urogynecology Journal, 19(2): 205-211.
10.1007/s00192-007-0421-x
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
A historical perspective on pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic girdle pain
Bastiaanssen, JM; de Bie, RA; Bastiaenen, CHG; Essed, GGM; van den Brandt, PA
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 120(1): 3-14.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.11.021
CrossRef
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing
Water aerobics reduces sick leave due to low back pain during pregnancy
Granath, AB; Hellgren, MSE; Gunnarsson, RK
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 35(4): 465-471.
10.1111/J.1552-6909.2006.00066.x
CrossRef
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
The Pregnancy Mobility Index: a mobility scale during and after pregnancy
Van de Pol, G; De Leeuw, JRJ; Van Brummen, HJ; Bruinse, HW; Heintz, APM; Van der Vaart, CH
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 85(7): 786-791.
10.1080/00016340500456373
CrossRef
Ergonomics
Comfort evaluation of maternity support garments in a wear trial
Ho, SS; Yu, W; Lao, TT; Chow, DHK; Chung, JW; Li, Y
Ergonomics, 51(9): 1376-1393.
10.1080/00140130802116489
CrossRef
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
Low back pain prevalence in Turkish pregnant women
Mazicioglu, M; Tucer, B; Ozturk, A; Serin, IS; Koc, H; Yurdakos, K; Bayrak, B
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 19(): 89-96.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy
Pennick, VE; Young, G
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2): -.
ARTN CD001139
CrossRef
Spine
Predicting persistent pregnancy-related low back pain
Gutke, A; Ostgaard, HC; Oberg, B
Spine, 33(): E386-E393.

Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
No association between previous Caesarean-section delivery and back pain in mid-aged Australian women an observational study
Drew, MK; Sibbritt, D; Chiarelli, P
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 54(4): 269-272.

Spine
Hormonal and reproductive factors are associated with chronic low back pain and chronic upper extremity pain in women - The MORGEN study
Wijnhoven, HAH; de Vet, HCW; Smit, HA; Picavet, HSJ
Spine, 31(): 1496-1502.

Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
Complementary and alternative medicine for low-back pain in pregnancy: A cross-sectional survey
Wang, SM; DeZinno, P; Fermo, L; William, K; Caldwell-Andrews, AA; Bravemen, F; Kain, ZN
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(3): 459-464.

Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing
A pilot study on the effects of aquatic exercises on discomforts of pregnancy
Smith, SA; Michel, Y
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 35(3): 315-323.
10.1111/J.1552-6909.2006.00045.x
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Auricular acupuncture as a treatment for pregnant women who have low back and posterior pelvic pain: a pilot study
Wang, SM; DeZinno, P; Lin, EC; Lin, HQ; Yue, JJ; Berman, MR; Braveman, F; Kain, ZN
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 201(3): -.
ARTN 271.e1
CrossRef
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Outcome of Pregnancy-Related Lumbopelvic Pain Treated According to A Diagnosis-Based Decision Rule: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
Murphy, DR; Hurwitz, EL; McGovern, EE
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 32(8): 616-624.
10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.09.002
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Effectiveness of maternity support belts in reducing low back pain during pregnancy: a review
Ho, SSM; Yu, WWM; Lao, TT; Chow, DHK; Chung, JWY; Li, Y
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(): 1523-1532.
10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02749.x
CrossRef
Turkish Journal of Rheumatology-Turk Romatoloji Dergisi
Low Back Pain in Pregnancy
Nacir, B; Karagoz, A; Erdem, HR
Turkish Journal of Rheumatology-Turk Romatoloji Dergisi, 24(1): 39-45.

Spine Journal
Low back pain in 1,100 Iranian pregnant women: prevalence and risk factors
Mohseni-Bandpei, MA; Fakhri, M; Ahmad-Shirvani, M; Bagheri-Nessami, M; Khalilian, AR; Shayesteh-Azar, M; Mohseni-Bandpei, H
Spine Journal, 9(): 795-801.
10.1016/j.spinee.2009.05.012
CrossRef
Turkiye Fiziksel Tip Ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Pregnancy Associated Osteoporosis
Akyuz, G; Bayindir, O
Turkiye Fiziksel Tip Ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 59(2): 145-150.
10.4274/tftr.92259
CrossRef
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
Pelvic girdle pain after childbirth: The impact of mode of delivery
Mukkannavar, P; Desai, BR; Mohanty, U; Parvatikar, V; Karwa, D; Daiwajna, S
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 26(3): 281-290.
10.3233/BMR-130378
CrossRef
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Musculoskeletal Aspects of Pregnancy
Borg-Stein, J; Dugan, SA; Gruber, J
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(3): 180-192.
10.1097/01.PHM.0000156970.96219.48
PDF (937) | CrossRef
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology
Prevalence and predictors of chronic pain after labor and delivery
Vermelis, JM; Wassen, MM; Fiddelers, AA; Nijhuis, JG; Marcus, MA
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 23(3): 295-299.
10.1097/ACO.0b013e32833853e8
PDF (180) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2004 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share