Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy
More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep. To update th...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews no. 9; p. CD001139 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
30.09.2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep.
To update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
We included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks' gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians' interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back painResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic painResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic painResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient.
There is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | BACKGROUNDMore than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep.OBJECTIVESTo update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists.SELECTION CRITERIARandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.MAIN RESULTSWe included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks' gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians' interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back painResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic painResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic painResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThere is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly. More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or together (low-back and pelvic pain) and typically increase with advancing pregnancy, interfering with work, daily activities and sleep. To update the evidence assessing the effects of any intervention used to prevent and treat low-back pain, pelvic pain or both during pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (to 19 January 2015), and the Cochrane Back Review Groups' (to 19 January 2015) Trials Registers, identified relevant studies and reviews and checked their reference lists. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment, or combination of treatments, to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of low-back pain, pelvic pain or both, related functional disability, sick leave and adverse effects during pregnancy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We included 34 RCTs examining 5121 pregnant women, aged 16 to 45 years and, when reported, from 12 to 38 weeks' gestation. Fifteen RCTs examined women with low-back pain (participants = 1847); six examined pelvic pain (participants = 889); and 13 examined women with both low-back and pelvic pain (participants = 2385). Two studies also investigated low-back pain prevention and four, low-back and pelvic pain prevention. Diagnoses ranged from self-reported symptoms to clinicians' interpretation of specific tests. All interventions were added to usual prenatal care and, unless noted, were compared with usual prenatal care. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low, raising concerns about the confidence we could put in the estimates of effect. For low-back painResults from meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, inconsistency) that any land-based exercise significantly reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.25; participants = 645; studies = seven) and functional disability (SMD -0.56; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.23; participants = 146; studies = two). Low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) also suggested no significant differences in the number of women reporting low-back pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, versus usual prenatal care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17; participants = 374; studies = two). For pelvic painResults from a meta-analysis provided low-quality evidence (study design limitations, imprecision) of no significant difference in the number of women reporting pelvic pain between group exercise, added to information about managing pain, and usual prenatal care (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; participants = 374; studies = two). For low-back and pelvic painResults from meta-analyses provided moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations) that: an eight- to 12-week exercise program reduced the number of women who reported low-back and pelvic pain (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; participants = 1176; studies = four); land-based exercise, in a variety of formats, significantly reduced low-back and pelvic pain-related sick leave (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94; participants = 1062; studies = two).The results from a number of individual studies, incorporating various other interventions, could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was moderate-quality evidence (study design limitations or imprecision) from individual studies suggesting that osteomanipulative therapy significantly reduced low-back pain and functional disability, and acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from individual studies was largely of low quality (study design limitations, imprecision), and suggested that pain and functional disability, but not sick leave, were significantly reduced following a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) for low-back and pelvic pain.When reported, adverse effects were minor and transient. There is low-quality evidence that exercise (any exercise on land or in water), may reduce pregnancy-related low-back pain and moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that any exercise improves functional disability and reduces sick leave more than usual prenatal care. Evidence from single studies suggests that acupuncture or craniosacral therapy improves pregnancy-related pelvic pain, and osteomanipulative therapy or a multi-modal intervention (manual therapy, exercise and education) may also be of benefit.Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of results in many cases. Statistical heterogeneity was substantial in all but three meta-analyses, which did not improve following sensitivity analyses. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be ruled out.Further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and change the estimates. Studies would benefit from the introduction of an agreed classification system that can be used to categorise women according to their presenting symptoms, so that treatment can be tailored accordingly. |
| Author | Liddle, Sarah D Pennick, Victoria |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Sarah D surname: Liddle fullname: Liddle, Sarah D organization: Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, Ireland, BT37 0QB – sequence: 2 givenname: Victoria surname: Pennick fullname: Pennick, Victoria |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26422811$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNo1UE1PwyAYJkbjPvQvLD16aeUFCvRoptMlSzyoibcGKCzVllZoZ_bvnXOenjyfh2eGzn3nLUILwBlgTG6B8RxkLrPlPcYAtMj6UbMzND0YRcoK-j5Bsxg_MKYFgLxEE8IZIRJgil7WfrBhZ_1Qdz4mrgtJH-yR-22ifJUMwaojabrvVCvzeVR72-xqk_Sq9kk1hl__0Nt65c3-Cl041UR7fcI5els9vC6f0s3z43p5t0kNE5SlAgTFuMLOVcJpapjlAJwK4rikRColc00pFopYB9gxIzXXRmuhXc6VZGSObv52-9B9jTYOZVtHY5tGeduNsQQBssA0P6zN0eIUHXVrq7IPdavCvvw_gvwA8cliDw |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_3233_BMR_240006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_midw_2017_10_011 crossref_primary_10_5114_pq_2023_116429 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2023_1206799 crossref_primary_10_1080_07853890_2025_2476046 crossref_primary_10_31083_j_ceog5010208 crossref_primary_10_36290_neu_2018_149 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_024032 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11606_019_05086_4 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_42010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jphys_2017_11_012 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_csm_2017_05_005 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_023_06772_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_025_08544_9 crossref_primary_10_23736_S1973_9087_18_05410_2 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphys_2019_00315 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_024_07785_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_025_08350_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_monrhu_2020_11_007 crossref_primary_10_1002_hsr2_1389 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_physio_2021_09_002 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_025_08082_1 crossref_primary_10_1515_jom_2021_0231 crossref_primary_10_20518_tjph_1196149 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_srhc_2023_100940 crossref_primary_10_1113_EP090187 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00586_024_08193_x crossref_primary_10_2147_JPR_S510703 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2022_43665 crossref_primary_10_31083_j_ceog4905115 crossref_primary_10_2196_40553 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12178_025_09991_6 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2599_2262 crossref_primary_10_1155_2019_1567584 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12906_023_04126_1 crossref_primary_10_3233_BMR_200094 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_50494 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43545_022_00576_5 crossref_primary_10_1177_00084174231172037 crossref_primary_10_2147_JMDH_S441210 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12325_020_01554_0 crossref_primary_10_1515_hmbci_2017_0037 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12998_019_0279_2 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm13247661 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0415_6412_17_30009_7 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicines5030063 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10067_018_4185_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogn_2016_12_006 crossref_primary_10_2196_26093 crossref_primary_10_1080_02701367_2024_2340047 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpain_2022_08_003 crossref_primary_10_1111_ijn_13113 crossref_primary_10_1080_00913847_2017_1351286 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_017_0458_y crossref_primary_10_1177_17455057251321019 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_018_2035_3 crossref_primary_10_1097_NMC_0000000000000724 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0261766 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_024_07082_x |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub4 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| EndPage | CD001139 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 26422811 |
| Genre | Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4734-717300d0ffd7fb3c4e6116372f68328aa85b3307a2ef10f4c8b6bcbb7bf56a842 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 204 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000366059800001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| IngestDate | Thu Jul 10 17:43:57 EDT 2025 Sun Jul 13 01:32:11 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 9 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4734-717300d0ffd7fb3c4e6116372f68328aa85b3307a2ef10f4c8b6bcbb7bf56a842 |
| Notes | SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 ObjectType-Article-3 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub4/pdf/full |
| PMID | 26422811 |
| PQID | 1718903583 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1718903583 pubmed_primary_26422811 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2015-09-30 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-09-30 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 09 year: 2015 text: 2015-09-30 day: 30 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2015 |
| References | 23904227 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 01;(8):CD001139. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub3. |
| References_xml | – reference: 23904227 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 01;(8):CD001139. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub3. |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.5721345 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately or... BACKGROUNDMore than two-thirds of pregnant women experience low-back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The two conditions may occur separately... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | CD001139 |
| SubjectTerms | Acupuncture Therapy Back Pain - prevention & control Back Pain - therapy Braces Exercise Therapy Female Humans Low Back Pain - prevention & control Low Back Pain - therapy Manipulation, Osteopathic Pelvic Pain - prevention & control Pelvic Pain - therapy Pregnancy Pregnancy Complications - prevention & control Pregnancy Complications - therapy Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Sick Leave - statistics & numerical data |
| Title | Interventions for preventing and treating low-back and pelvic pain during pregnancy |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26422811 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1718903583 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000366059800001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpZ1LS8QwEICDuiJefD_WFxG8xt3m0SYnkdVFD7ssqLC3kqTNsri01frAf--k7aoXQfBSSCGhHWYmH5nJDEJnMmVcAbQRJXRIOHWSaCUNUVSGVgjDjaqbTUTDoRyP1ag5cCubtMq5T6wcdZJbf0beCcCJqi4Tkl0UT8R3jfLR1aaFxiJqMUAZr9XR-CuKwMCQ5fxWcJd2At_3Wwp53rvyJARaAr_Mf0fLaovpr__34zbQWgOX-LLWhk20kGZbaGXQhM-30d3tjwzHEgOv4qIp4ZRNsM4SXOWd-8EsfydG28fqbZHOwKHgQk8zXN9r9PMmvlbHxw566F_f925I01WBWB4xn3zpS9QnXeeSyBlmeRoGAGURdSFYt9RaCsPA8jVNXdB13EoTGmtMZJwIteR0Fy1leZbuI2y4TayymkWJ4rCO0g6AQjmrAXqoSNrodC6uGLTWhyJ0luavZfwtsDbaq2UeF3V5jRgQjVIZBAd_mH2IVoFgRJ3AcYRaDmw2PUbL9u1lWj6fVOoAz-Fo8AkhNcDl |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interventions+for+preventing+and+treating+low-back+and+pelvic+pain+during+pregnancy&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Liddle%2C+Sarah+D&rft.au=Pennick%2C+Victoria&rft.date=2015-09-30&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=CD001139&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD001139.pub4&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26422811&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26422811&rft.externalDocID=26422811 |