Postnatal pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary incontinence: where do we stand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postnatal pelvic floor muscle training aims to rehabilitate the pelvic floor muscles. To be effective, a certain exercise dosage must be respected. Recent trials evaluated the effect of different programs on prevention/treatment of urinary incontinence immediately after delivery and in treatment of persistent incontinence. RECENT FINDINGS: Only three systematic reviews, six trials, and four follow-up studies have been published in the past two decades. High heterogeneity in postnatal pelvic floor muscle training programs is observed throughout the literature, making comparisons difficult. In the prevention/treatment of postnatal urinary incontinence immediately after delivery and in persistent incontinence, supervised intensive programs prove more effective than standard postnatal care. Longer-term results have yet to show advantages for postnatal training programs. SUMMARY: Although a certain exercise dosage must be respected for a postnatal pelvic floor muscle training program to be effective, a few randomized controlled trials present such dosage. Randomized controlled trials should study the effect of supervised, intensive training protocols with adherence aids. As standard care does not seem to reduce the prevalence of postnatal urinary incontinence, obstetrics services must address delivery of postnatal pelvic floor muscle training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".