Pelvic Floor Muscle Training With Biofeedback and Bladder Training in Elderly Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is generally assumed that interventions used to treat urinary incontinence (UI) in young women could simply be applied to older competent and motivated women, but these assumptions have not been formally tested. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using physical therapies to treat UI in older women. DESIGN: Twelve-week time series. SETTINGS AND SUBJECTS: We recruited women older than 75 years with UI from an outpatient urology clinic and a waiting list for incontinence surgery. METHODS: After a baseline evaluation, the women collected data on their incontinence symptoms and bladder habits for 3 weeks using the 72-hour voiding diary and the 24-hour pad test. They then received 6 physical therapy treatments consisting of a combination of bladder training and pelvic floor muscle training assisted with biofeedback for 6 weeks. This was followed by another 3-week period of data collection and a final evaluation. RESULTS: Ten women participated in the study; 7 completed it. They were all comfortable with the treatment. They complied with the study demands in terms of attendance at treatment session (100%), data collection (96%), and completion of exercises at home (82%). The authors observed a decrease in the number of incontinent and urgency episodes. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study demonstrates that some women older than 75 years are good candidates to undertake physical therapies for UI and follow study demands. Random controlled studies that include this population will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of these therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".