Talk:Low Back Pain and Pregnancy

Peer review

 Reviewer Details
1. Name of Reviewer: Joanne Garvey
2. Name of Reviewer Credentials (PhD, MPH, etc.): MSc BSc(Hons) MMACP MCSP
3. Title of Reviewer (Professor, Program Director, etc.): Senior Physiotherapist
4. School/Institution/Clinic: Joanne Garvey Physiotherapy
5. May we have your permission to publish your review openly on Physiopedia?: Yes
6. May we have your permission to recognise you in the article as a reviewer?: Yes
Review Questions
1. 18.03.2015
2. Physiopedia Page Title: Low Back Pain and Pregnancy
3. In a sentence please outline your general impression of this article: The article contains many useful points, but comes across as being slightly prescriptive regarding exercise management.
4. What are the strengths of this article?Systematic and well referenced
5. What areas of this article could be improved? Sections regarding assessment could be better linked to clinical reasoning and function. Again, this feels quite prescriptive in its manner.
6. Is the content on the page comprehensive and appropriately structured? It is comprehensive, but very text heavy, and not enough diagrams/ visual information. The one video link seemed to only have a tenuous link, and was mainly about pelvic floor rehabilitation, which is not the subject of this page
7. Is the page written in an appropriate style for practicing clinicians? Yes
8. Are the key points made on the page referenced correctly? Referenced but not correctly
9. Are all the appropriate issues and arguments included in the page? I think there could be more inclusion of the case for core stability education in the management of LBP in this population of patients.
10. Are any key and recent pieces of research missing from the page? Recent evidence for core stability training, and the need to assess the whole pelvic region.
11. Did you find any errors in the content? There are some sweeping statements that need correcting. (Please review the article for accuracy and correct any factual errors as well as any misleading or inaccurate content. You do not need to correct grammatical and spelling errors.)
12. Are there any topics that are not included in the article/topic that you would like to see? Further information or links to evidence based core stability training for the pregnant population
13. Are there any topics that you feel should be covered in greater or less detail? The changes in anatomy with pregnancy, linking in to the mechanical changes/stresses in the low back and pelvis.
14. Did you feel the content was current? Although the article does cite some current articles, it has a very prescriptive feel to it. It needs to link to more current research. If not, how could it be more up-to-date?
15. Finally, would you use this article in your teaching or clinical work? Not currently, as too prescriptive. Please state the reasons why or why not?
16. Please record your suggestions to improve the page below:
• Include some differentiation tests for hip/SIJ/LBP and PS.
• Link to current management techniques such as core stability/use of hip adductors/proprioceptive enhancement
• Include up-to-date techniques such as taping to support the pelvis
• Include a functional element to the management/treatment/exercises for patients.
• Remove the video link to Kegel ex’s as it is not linked to the topic of this page.

Updates
1. Have you made the required amendments/updates to the Physiopedia page being reviewed here? No, but intend to update.   (If no, one of our team will do this for you).