Physical therapy for urinary incontinence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low bone density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of 12 weekly physical therapy sessions for urinary incontinence (UI) compared with a control intervention, for reducing the number of UI episodes measured with the 7-day bladder diary, at 3 months and 1 year postrandomization. METHODS: A single parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted at one outpatient public health center, in postmenopausal women aged 55 years and over with osteoporosis or low bone density and UI. Women were randomized to physical therapy (PT) for UI or osteoporosis education. The primary outcome measure was number of leakage episodes on the 7-day bladder diary, assessed at baseline, after treatment and at 1 year. The secondary outcome measures included the pad test and disease-specific quality of life and self-efficacy questionnaires assessed at the same timepoints. RESULTS: Forty-eight women participated (24 per group). Two participants dropped out of each group and one participant was deceased before 3-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis was undertaken. At 3 months and 1 year, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of leakage episodes on the 7-day bladder diary (3 mo: P = 0.04; 1 y: P = 0.01) in favor of the PT group. The effect size was 0.34 at 1 year. There were no harms reported. CONCLUSIONS: After a 12-week course of PT once per week for UI, PT group participants had a 75% reduction in weekly median number of leakage episodes, whereas the control group's condition had no improvement. At 1 year, the PT group participants maintained this improvement, whereas the control group's incontinence worsened.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".