Pelvic floor dysfunction in women with fibromyalgia and control subjects: Prevalence and impact on overall symptomatology and psychosocial function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To evaluate the prevalence, distress, and impact of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) symptomatology in women with fibromyalgia and control women. We also aimed to evaluate the impact of PFD symptomatology on several psychosocial measures such as mood, sleep, pain, and quality of life. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional study in women with fibromyalgia and control women from the general population. Using a structured survey, we collected sociodemographic and clinical data, assessed the prevalence of PFD and evaluated the distress (PFDI‐20) and the impact (PFIQ‐7) caused by its symptomatology. Using Spanish‐validated questionnaires, we also evaluated mood and sleep disturbances, bodily pain, and quality of life in subjects with and without PFD. In participants with fibromyalgia, we assessed the severity and impact of the disease using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR). Results Two hundred and twenty‐six patients with fibromyalgia and 222 control women completed the surveys. Two hundred and twenty patients (93%) and 140 controls (63%) reported PFD‐related symptoms. Both the scores of distress (143.1 ± 5.7 vs 96.1 ± 4.8, P < 0.0001) and impact (122.4 ± 5.6 vs 100.6 ± 6.4, P < 0.0001) caused by PFD symptoms were significantly higher in women with fibromyalgia than in controls. There was a significant positive relationship between fibromyalgia severity and both PFDI‐20 ( r 2 = 0.32, P < 0.0001) and PFIQ‐7 scores ( r 2 = 0.375, P < 0.0001). Depression severity, sleep disturbances, bodily pain, and low quality of life were highest in women with fibromyalgia and PFD and lowest in control women without PFD. Conclusions PFD‐related symptoms were significantly more frequent in women with fibromyalgia than in controls. PFD symptomatology, when present, negatively influenced mood, sleep quality, and quality of life of both patients with fibromyalgia and controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".