Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of women with PGP or PGP plus LBP and women with no PGP before inclusion in RCT in pregnancy

From: Predictors and consequences of long-term pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain: a longitudinal follow-up study

Variable

PGP or PGP + LBP (n = 37)

No PGP (n = 290)

p-value

Treatment in RCT

 Standard treatment

11 (29.7 %)

77 (26.6 %)

 

 Standard treatment + Acupuncture

14 (37.8 %)

129 (44.5 %)

 

 Standard treatment + Specific stabilising exercises

4 (10.8 %)

56 (19.3 %)

 

 Standard treatment + Craniosacral therapy

8 (21.6 %)

28 (9.7 %)

0.11

Age, years

30.0 (23.0; 39.0)

31.0 (20.0; 43.0)

0.40

n = 37

n = 289

BMI before pregnancy

22.6 (19.7; 34.2)

23.2 (18.0; 38.4)

0.99

n = 23

n = 115

Age at menarche, years

13.0 (10.0; 15.0)

13.0 (9.0; 16.0)

0.63

n = 32

n = 248

Previous LBP

24 (64.9 %)

127 (44.7 %)

0.032

Women on sick-leave due to PGP

13 (35.1 %)

143 (50.0 %)

0.13

Severity of PGP

 No complaints, PGP do not affect ability to work

1 (2.7 %)

5 (1.8 %)

 

 Moderate complaints, PGP only affect ability to work sporadically

5 (13.5 %)

67 (23.8 %)

 

 Not insignificant, cannot do some parts of my work

15 (40.5 %)

90 (32.0 %)

 

 Severe, can almost not work

12 (32.4 %)

79 (28.1 %)

 

 Severe, cannot work at all

4 (10.8 %)

40 (14.2 %)

0.80

Tests for assessment of PGP before inclusion in the RCT

Pain provocation tests

 P4 test

37 (100.0 %)

283 (97.6 %)

0.86

 Symphysis pressure test

22 (59.5 %)

121 (42.2 %)

0.070

 Patrick Faber test

27 (73.0 %)

159 (54.8 %)

0.051

 Modified Trendelenburg test

22 (59.5 %)

116 (40.0 %)

0.039

Number of bilateral positive pain provocation tests

 0

0 (0.0 %)

3 (1.0 %)

 

 1

6 (16.2 %)

58 (20.0 %)

 

 2

6 (16.2 %)

107 (36.9 %)

 

 3

10 (27.0 %)

81 (27.9 %)

 

 4

15 (40.5 %)

41 (14.1 %)

0.0013

Functional test

   

ASLR test (sum of scores)

3.00 (0.00; 8.00)

3.00 (0.00; 10.00)

0.35

n = 23

n = 116

Subgroups of pelvic girdle pain

   

 Solely symphysiolysis

0 (0.0 %)

5 (1.7 %)

1.00

 One sided sacroiliac pain

3 (8.1 %)

37 (12.8 %)

0.61

 One sided sacroiliac pain + symphyseal pain

6 (16.2 %)

39 (13.4 %)

0.80

 Double sided sacroiliac pain

12 (32.4 %)

118 (40.7 %)

0.43

 Pelvic girdle syndrome

16 (43.2 %)

91 (31.4 %)

0.21

Pain related to motion

 In the morning, VAS

31.0 (8.0; 92.0)

26.5 (0.0; 96.0

0.089

 In the evening, VAS

62.0 (5.0; 93.0)

62.8 (6.0; 100.0)

0.30

n = 37

n = 288

Unpleasantness of PGP, VAS

63.0 (20.0; 100.0)

73.0 (0.0; 100.0)

0.068

n = 30

n = 200

DRI

50.0 (23.0; 100.0)

59.0 (11.0; 100.0)

0.11

n = 37

n = 279

EQ-VAS

40.0 (25.0; 100.0)

50.0 (20.0; 99.0)

0.37

n = 23

n = 113

EQ-5D score

0.620 (-0.016; 0.760)

0.620 (-0.074; 0.796)

0.23

n = 23

n = 112

Education level

   

 Primary school

0 (0.0 %)

5 (2.0 %)

 

 Secondary school

11 (33.3 %)

64 (25.3 %)

 

 College

5 (15.2 %)

21 (8.3 %)

 

 University degree

17 (51.5 %)

163 (64.4 %)

0.37

No or rare ability to take rest breaks at work

4 (13.8 %)

68 (29.8 %)

0.18

Physical activity ≥30 minutes during leisure before pregnancy, days/week

 0

3 (9.1 %)

8 (3.2 %)

 

 1

1 (3.0 %)

20 (7.9 %)

 

 2

3 (9.1 %)

43 (17.1 %)

 

 3

7 (21.2 %)

57 (22.6 %)

 

 4

5 (15.2 %)

31 (12.3 %)

 

 5

3 (9.1 %)

37 (14.7 %)

 

 6

2 (6.1 %)

13 (5.2 %)

 

 7

9 (27.3 %)

43 (17.1 %)

0.35

  1. For comparison between groups Fisher’s Exact test was used for ichotomous variables and the Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square Exact test was used for ordered categorical variables and the Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square test was used for ordered categorical variables and Chi Square Exact test was used for non-ordered categorical variables and Chi Square test was used for non-ordered categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables
  2. PGP pelvic girdle pain, LBP Low back pain, RCT Randomized controlled trial, BMI Body mass index, P4-test Posterior pelvic pain provocation test, ASLR-test Active straight leg test, VAS visual analoge scale. DRI Disability Rating Index; EQ-5D European Quality of Life measure – five dimensions; EQ-VAS European Quality of Life measure – visual analog scale. For categorical variables n (%) is presented. For continuous variables Mean (SD) / Median (Min; Max) / n = is presented