MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792756350 · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000513

Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Versus Watchful Waiting and Pelvic Floor Disorders in Postpartum Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2792756350 on OpenAlexaff
You Wu, Natalia McInnes, Yvonne Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWatchful waitingPelvic Floor DisordersPelvic Floor MusclePelvic floorMeta-analysisPhysical therapyObstetricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is often recommended to treat postpartum urinary incontinence (UI). However, the role of postpartum PFMT in pelvic organ prolapse (POP), sexual function, and anal incontinence (AI) remains unclear. We therefore aim to assess the efficacy of postpartum PFMT on these pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: This study is a meta-analysis consisting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro. We also sought after grey literature including conference proceedings. We included RCTs comparing PFMT versus watchful waiting in women with stage II or less POP within 1 year postpartum. Two authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessments, and data extraction. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (3845 patients) were included. Women undergoing PFMT less likely report bothersome POP symptoms (risk ratio [RR], 0.48 [0.30-0.76]; very low-quality evidence). There is no significant difference in the number of women with stage II or greater POP (RR, 0.74 [0.45-1.24]; moderate-quality evidence). Fewer women receiving PFMT report the presence of sexual dysfunction (RR, 0.48 [0.30-0.77]; low-quality evidence). There is no significant difference in AI symptoms (RR, 1.11 [0.82-1.51]), but PFMT may be more beneficial for women with anal sphincter injuries (standardized mean differencein AI scores, -0.57 [-1.12 to -0.02]; low-quality evidence). Women receiving PFMT less likely report UI (RR, 0.44 [0.25-0.75]; moderate-quality evidence) with a more pronounced effect on stress UI (SUI). CONCLUSIONS: At present, it remains uncertain whether postpartum PFMT improves POP symptoms because of very low-quality evidence, and more high-quality RCTs are needed in this area. The POP staging will likely not change with postpartum PFMT. The PFMT may result in improved postpartum sexual function compared to watchful waiting, and may provide benefit for AI in women with anal sphincter injuries. Postpartum PFMT likely reduces the risk of UI, particularly stress urinary incontinence symptoms. There is currently little evidence about postpartum PFMT and long-term pelvic floor function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFemale Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207