Ekdahl 2010.

Methods	40 pregnant women 'from the same demographic area' in Sweden; N = 20 in each group (group 1 and 2). After diagnosis with pelvic and LBP, women were referred to the acupuncturist at the hospital 'where randomisation was carried out; women were phoned to give them the dates for their acupuncture; baseline data were collected when they came for treatment'.
Participants	Inclusion criteria: healthy pregnant women with LBPP diagnosed using P4 test. Exclusion criteria: treatment with cortisone, anticoagulants or immunosuppressive drugs; heart disease; diabetes; pacemakers; epilepsy; hepatitis; HIV or AIDS; acute infection; psychiatric disease; haematological disorders; renal disease; premature contractions; needle phobia.
Interventions	Both groups received the same treatment; 8 acupuncture treatments over a 6‐week period (2 treatments per week in the first 2 weeks and once per week thereafter) with first treatment lasting 20 minutes and number of needles limited to 5, and remainder 30 minutes with maximum 10 needles. Intervention group 1 (N = 20/16 analysed): mean age 28.6 years, started treatment at 20 weeks' gestation and Intervention group 2 (N = 20/16 analysed): mean age 27.9 years, started treatment at 26 weeks' gestation. No control group: acupuncture intervention was started either at 20 (group 1) or 26 weeks' (group 2) gestation.
Outcomes	Short Form Health survey questionnaire (SF‐36), Short Form Magill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Pain‐o‐meter, fetal sound measured at baseline, at 4th and 8th treatment sessions, at same times for each group; qualitative data collected via telephone interviews 2 to 3 months after delivery. Both groups had similar experience of acupuncture (from qualitative interviews). Small number of study participants acknowledged by authors. Non compliance in both groups reported.
Condition (LBP, PP, LBPP)	LBPP.
Notes	Funding = Council of Research and Development (FoU‐centrum), Landstinget Kronoberg, Sweden.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information given about sequence generation; in the discussion it states that 'the women were chosen randomly'.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Telephone allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	'both groups had similar experience with acupuncture when asked at end of treatment'; unclear if acupuncturists were informed of gestation, or if they were able to determine by observation, however, the difference was only 20 to 26 weeks, therefore likely not a big issue.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided on who collected the self‐report outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) effect of intervention	Low risk	Both groups had 4 drop‐outs with reasons given ‐ did not appear to be related to intervention.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Qualitative data supports quantitative data ‐ however the telephone interviews were completed by the study author.
Other bias	Low risk	Co‐interventions and adherence similar across groups, timing of outcome assessment same across groups, mean pain intensity was significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 at baseline.