Low back pain and pelvic girth pain are common in pregnancy and women commonly utilize complementary manual therapies such as massage, spinal manipulation, chiropractic, and osteopathy to manage their symptoms.
The aim of this systematically review was to critically appraise and synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual therapies for managing pregnancy-related low back and pelvic pain.
Seven databases were searched from their inception until April 2015 for randomized controlled trials. Studies investigating the effectiveness of massage and chiropractic and osteopathic therapies were included. The study population was pregnant women of any age and at any time during the antenatal period. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias were conducted by 2 reviewers independently, using the Cochrane tool. Separate meta-analyses were conducted to compare manual therapies to different control interventions.
Out of 348 nonduplicate records, 11 articles reporting on 10 studies on a total of 1198 pregnant women were included in this meta-analysis. The therapeutic interventions predominantly involved massage and osteopathic manipulative therapy. Meta-analyses found positive effects for manual therapy on pain intensity when compared to usual care and relaxation but not when compared to sham interventions. Acceptability did not differ between manual therapy and usual care or sham interventions.
There is currently limited evidence to support the use of complementary manual therapies as an option for managing low back and pelvic pain during pregnancy. Considering the lack of effect compared to sham interventions, further high-quality research is needed to determine causal effects, the influence of the therapist on the perceived effectiveness of treatments, and adequate dose-response of complementary manual therapies on low back and pelvic pain outcomes during pregnancy.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2026.
All research outputs
#1,493,577
of 33,940,276 outputs
Outputs from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#437
of 19,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,743
of 332,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#15
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,940,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
