Table 1.
Summary of studies on the effectiveness of MSGs.
| References | Study Design | Sample size | Gestational Age | Type of Pain | Pain verification | Study duration | Garment used | Outcome measures | Method of measurement | Conclusion of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carr [11] | Pilot study, prospective, nonrandomized, two-group design with repeated measures | Intervention group: 30 women Comparison group: 10 women |
At least 20 weeks | Low back pain, excluding women with preexisting back pain or disc disease | Self-report LBP over the previous week at least at a “medium” level | 2 weeks | (i)Support Belt/Binder: The Loving Comfort lumbosacral orthosis | Low back pain intensity and duration | Pain in pregnancy profile (PIP): scale: 0 “no pain" to 10 “the worst pain" | The use of a support belt for LBP is effective in reducing pain scores and improving PIP scores. The belt of study is easy to use and well accepted by pregnant women. |
| Influence of pain on ADL | Activity-related effect of pain on activities: scale 0 “all the time" to 7 “never" plus nonapplicable option (on pain in pregnancy (PIP) questionnaire) | |||||||||
| Acceptability of the support garment | Open-ended questions about acceptability of the support garment | |||||||||
| Kalus, Kornman [12] | Randomized controlled trial | 94 women | 20-36 weeks | Lumbar back pain or posterior pelvic (SIJ) | Based on an oral history and on the patient's localization of their pain on a visual back chart | 3 weeks | (i) Full torso garment: Belly Bra® (intervention) (ii) “Tubigrip” (control) |
Low back and posterior pelvic pain severity | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) | The garments used during the study are effective for reducing the severity of LBP, with Belly Bra® being more effective in alleviating the impact of pain on specific ADL. |
| Influence of pain in physical activity | Likert scale | |||||||||
| Satisfaction with life | Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) | |||||||||
| Kordi, Abolhasani [21] | Randomized controlled trial, 3 groups of study | 96 women | 21-30 weeks | Pelvic girdle pain | Pain drawing and positive result of one of the two following tests: (i) Patrick's test and posterior pelvic pain provocation test for patients with more pain around the SIJ (ii) Modifying Trendelenburg test and direct palpation of the symphysis pubis test for patients with more complaints in symphysis pubis |
6 weeks | (i) Nonrigid lumbopelvic belt | Pelvic girdle pain intensity | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) | The combination of the use of a lumbopelvic belt with information about ergonomics and anatomy of the spine during pregnancy is more effective than the combination of exercise and information to reduce PGP and to improve functional mobility of women during pregnancy, improving QOL |
| Quality of life | World Health Organization's Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) | |||||||||
| Functional status | Oswestry Disability Index Questionnaire (ODI) | |||||||||
| Cakmak, Inanir [19] | Prospective and observational cohort study | 90 women: 30 per trimester | First, second, and third trimesters | N/A | N/A | Not mentioned | (i) Maternity support belt: Variteks Ortopedi Sanayi | Postural stability | Overall Stability Index (OA) - level 8 - range of scores from O° to 20° | (i) MSGs are useful for improvement of impaired balance and FRT scores across all trimesters of gestation, helping to reduce the risk of falling of pregnant women |
| Anterior-posterior stability index (APSI) - level 8 - range of scores from O° to 20° | ||||||||||
| Medial-lateral stability index (MLSI) - level 8 - range of scores from O° to 20° | ||||||||||
| Fall Risk Test (FRT) - level 8 - range of scores from O° to 20° | ||||||||||
| Flack, Hay-Smith [20] | Unblinded, single-center, 2-arm, parallel-group randomized pilot trial | 20 women | 29-38 weeks | Pubic symphyseal pain | A positive response to at least two of three clinical tests: reproduction of pain from palpation, modified Trendelenburg's test, or active straight leg raise test | 3 weeks | (i) Rigid belt: LC symphysis pubis belt (The Orthotic Center) (ii) Nonrigid belt: Smiley belt |
Symphyseal pain intensity | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) | (i) Pelvic support belts may have a positive effect in the reduction of pubic symphyseal pain and improvement of functionality in pregnant women. (ii) Nonrigid belts may be more comfortable and effective for managing pelvic symphyseal pain than rigid belts |
| Influence of symphyseal pain on ADL | Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) | |||||||||
| Influence of symphyseal pain on disability | Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) | |||||||||
| Joint hypermobility | Nine-point Beighton Hypermobility Score | |||||||||
| Bertuit, Van Lint [25] | Randomized control trial, two-group longitudinal study | 46 women | From 18 weeks | Pain in the SIJ and/or pubic region, excluding women with presence of lumbar-pelvic pain before pregnancy | Positive result for at least half of the following set of tests: posterior pelvic pain provocation test, Patrick Faber's test, Trendelenburg modified test, pain provocation tests, and active straight leg raise test during clinical examination | (i) Measurement 1 at start of study (ii) Measurement 2 at 34 weeks of pregnancy |
(i) Ortel-P® Pelvic Maternity Belt-Thuasne belt (ii) Lomba Mum Maternity Lumbar Brace-Thuasne |
Pelvic girdle pain | Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) | The use of maternity support belts reduced PGP, particularly on the SIJ over a 9-week period by increasing women proprioception and biomechanical effects. The use of belts improved the performance of ADL by pregnant women. |
| Topographic representation | ||||||||||
| Functional capacity | Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) | |||||||||