Is there a difference in pelvic floor muscle tone between women with and without pelvic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Alterations in pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function have been observed in women with persistent noncancer pelvic pain (PNCPP) as compared with women without PNCPP; however, the literature presents conflicting findings regarding differences in PFM tone between women with and without PNCPP. AIM: To systematically review the literature comparing PFM tone in women with and without PNCPP. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2021 for relevant studies. Studies were included that reported PFM tone data in women aged ≥18 years with and without PNCPP. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PFM tone measures were calculated via random effects models. OUTCOMES: Resting PFM tone parameters, including myoelectrical activity, resistance, morphometry, stiffness, flexibility, relaxation, and intravaginal pressure, measured by any clinical examination method or tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven PFM tone parameters were measured. Meta-analyses were conducted for myoelectrical activity, resistance, and anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus. Myoelectrical activity and resistance were higher in women with PNCPP than in women without (SMD = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.36-2.29] and SMD = 2.05 [95% CI, 1.03-3.06], respectively). Women with PNCPP also had a smaller anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus as compared with women without (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.16]). Meta-analyses were not performed for the remaining PFM tone parameters due to an insufficient number of studies; however, results of these studies suggested greater PFM stiffness and reduced PFM flexibility in women with PNCPP than in women without. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Available evidence suggests that women with PNCPP have increased PFM tone, which could be targeted by treatments. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: A comprehensive search strategy was used with no restriction on language or date to review studies evaluating PFM tone parameters between women with and without PNCPP. However, meta-analyses were not undertaken for all parameters because few included studies measured the same PFM tone properties. There was variability in the methods used to assess PFM tone, all of which have some limitations. CONCLUSION: Women with PNCPP have higher PFM tone than women without PNCPP; therefore, future research is required to understand the strength of the relationship between pelvic pain and PFM tone and to investigate the effect of treatment modalities to reduce PFM tone on pelvic pain in this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,023 | 0,042 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».