Pelvic Floor Muscle Assessment Outcomes in Women With and Without Provoked Vestibulodynia and the Impact of a Physical Therapy Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical therapy (PT) may reduce the pain associated with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) based on previous findings that pelvic floor muscle dysfunction (PFMD) is associated with PVD symptoms. AIMS: The goals of this study were: (i) to determine whether women with and without PVD differ on measures of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) behavior; and (ii) to assess the impact of PT treatment for women with PVD on these measures. METHODS: Eleven women with PVD and 11 control women completed an assessment evaluating PFM behavior using surface electromyography (SEMG) recordings and a digital intravaginal assessment. Women with PVD repeated the assessment after they had undergone eight PT treatment sessions of manual therapy, biofeedback, electrical stimulation, dilator insertions, and home exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Superficial and deep PFM SEMG tonic activity and phasic activity in response to a painful pressure stimulus, PFM digital assessment variables (tone, flexibility, relaxation capacity, and strength). RESULTS: At pretreatment, women with PVD had higher tonic SEMG activity in their superficial PFMs compared with the control group, whereas no differences were found in the deep PFMs. Both groups demonstrated contractile responses to the painful pressure stimulus that were significantly higher in the superficial as compared with the deep PFMs, with the responses in the PVD group being higher than those in control women. Women with PVD had higher PFM tone, decreased PFM flexibility and lower PFM relaxation capacity compared with control women. Posttreatment improvements included less PFM responsiveness to pain, less PFM tone, improved vaginal flexibility, and improved PFM relaxation capacity, such that women with PVD no longer differed from controls on these measures. CONCLUSION: Women with PVD demonstrated altered PFM behavior when compared with controls, providing empirical evidence of PFMD, especially at the superficial layer. A PT rehabilitation program specifically targeting PFMD normalized PFM behavior in women with PVD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".