3.9 Article

Pelvic girdle pain: Potential risk factors in pregnancy in relation to disability and pain intensity three months postpartum

期刊

MANUAL THERAPY
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 522-528

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2010.05.007

关键词

Lumbopelvic pain; Postpartum pelvic girdle pain; Clinical examination; DRI

资金

  1. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation
  2. Norwegian Fund for Post-Graduate Training in Physiotherapy
  3. University of Oslo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this prospective cohort study was to examine how results of clinical tests on women with pelvic girdle pain (PGP) in late pregnancy were associated with disability and pain intensity 12 weeks postpartum controlling for socio-demographical and psychological factors. Out of the 283 women clinically examined in gestation week 30, 179 were considered afflicted from PGP and constituted the study sample. Potential risk factors were assessed by questionnaires (at inclusion and in gestation week 30) and clinical examination in gestation week 30. The clinical examination included pain provocation tests for the pelvis as well as the active straight leg raise test. We used pain intensity and disability (disability rating index, DRI) as response variables, derived from questionnaires 12 weeks postpartum. Using multivariable linear regression analyses, sum of pain provocation tests and pre-pregnancy low back pain (LBP) were significantly associated with DRI 12 weeks postpartum. Furthermore, sum of pain provocation tests and number of pain sites were significantly associated with pain intensity. In conclusion, we found that when including results of clinical tests as risk factors together with socio-demographical and psychological factors in multivariable regression models, the clinical risk factors are the ones that remain significant. These results are of clinical importance because they seem to have the potential to identify women with a poor prognosis. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据