ArticlePloS one2025
What do we actually know about the biomechanics of pregnancy and labour? A systematic scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pregnancy and childbirth involve profound biomechanical transformations, adaptations, and functional demands on the maternal body. Although biomechanical complications have been identified as a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality, this remains one of the most under-researched areas in perinatal health. This systematic scoping review aimed to map and synthesise existing literature on the biomechanics of pregnancy and labour. Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidance, comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and MIDIRS were conducted up to May 2025. Eligible sources were peer-reviewed empirical studies assessing musculoskeletal, kinematic, kinetic, postural, or dynamic parameters in pregnant or labouring women. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened against predefined eligibility criteria. Data were charted using a structured extraction form and synthesised narratively across key biomechanical themes. Eighty-seven studies were included, all of which focused on pregnancy. No studies conducted during labour were identified. Most were observational with small sample sizes and limited diversity. Ethnicity was reported in only one study. Four key themes emerged: (1) Posture and spinal curvature, (2) Gait and locomotor analysis, (3) Functional tasks and interventions, and (4) Balance and stability. Findings showed high individual variability and no consistent biomechanical pattern across pregnancy. Real-world, neuromuscular, and labour-related biomechanics remain largely unexplored. This review underscores a critical gap in perinatal research: while biomechanical adaptations during pregnancy have been increasingly studied, labour remains entirely unexamined from a biomechanical perspective. Current evidence is fragmented, methodologically narrow, and lacks diversity, offering limited clinical relevance. We are effectively operating in a biomechanical vacuum, without empirical data to guide safer, more efficient, and personalised birth practices. Existing clinical approaches rely heavily on tradition, anecdotal experience, and untested theoretical assumptions. Addressing this evidence void, particularly in labour biomechanics and ethnic representation, is essential to improve perinatal outcomes and support equity in maternal care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.