↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating acupuncture and standard care for pregnant women with back pain: the EASE Back pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN49955124)

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating acupuncture and standard care for pregnant women with back pain: the EASE Back pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN49955124)
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0107-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Bishop, Reuben Ogollah, Bernadette Bartlam, Panos Barlas, Melanie A. Holden, Khaled M. Ismail, Sue Jowett, Martyn Lewis, Alison Lloyd, Christine Kettle, Jesse Kigozi, Nadine E. Foster, the EASE Back study team

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) and pelvic girdle pain (PGP) during pregnancy are common and often accepted as a 'normal' part of pregnancy. Many women receive little in the way of treatment, and yet pain interferes with sleep, daily activities and work and leads to increasing requests for induction of labour or elective caesarean section. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a full RCT evaluating the benefit of acupuncture for pregnancy-related back pain. This study is a single-centre, three-arm pilot RCT in one large maternity unit and associated antenatal and physiotherapy clinics. Women were eligible if they had pregnancy-related LBP with or without PGP. Exclusions included a history of miscarriage, high risk of early labour or pre-eclampsia, PGP only and previous acupuncture. Interventions were standard care (SC): a self-management booklet with physiotherapy if needed. SC+TA: the booklet and physiotherapy comprising true (penetrating) acupuncture, advice and exercise. SC+NPA: the booklet and physiotherapy comprising non-penetrating acupuncture, advice and exercise. Remote telephone randomisation used a 1:1:1 allocation ratio stratified by gestational weeks. Three measures of pain/function were compared to inform the primary outcome measure in a full RCT: the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and 11-point 0-10 numerical rating scale for pain. Analysis focused on process evaluation of recruitment, retention, descriptive information on outcomes, adherence to treatment, occurrence of adverse events and impact of physiotherapist training. One hundred twenty-five women were randomised (45% of those eligible) between April and October 2013; 73% (n = 91) provided 8-week follow-up data. Three of six recruitment methods accounted for 82% of total uptake: screening questionnaire at the 20-week scan, community midwives issuing study cards, and self-referral following local awareness initiatives. Physiotherapists' self-confidence on managing pregnancy-related LBP improved post training. The PGQ is suitable as the primary outcome in a full trial. The average number of treatment sessions in both SC+TA and SC+NPA was six (in line with treatment protocols). No serious adverse events attributable to the trial treatments were reported. A full RCT is feasible and would provide evidence about the effectiveness of acupuncture and inform treatment choices for women with pregnancy-related LBP. ISRCTN49955124.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 63 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 18%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Unspecified 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 69 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,403,545
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#975
of 1,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#353,933
of 419,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 419,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.