How well do published randomized controlled trials on pelvic floor muscle training interventions for urinary incontinence describe the details of the intervention? A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is strongly recommended for the management of mild to moderate urinary incontinence (UI) in women, yet the specific elements of PFMT that lead to improvement have not been identified. This gap in knowledge may be related, at least in part, to the lack of detail provided on intervention parameters reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) OBJECTIVE: Using three different instruments: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist, and the Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, the purpose of this study was to assess the completeness of exercise reporting among moderate to high quality RCTs on PFMT for women with UI. METHODS: Two raters independently scored all 65 RCTs (n = 65) retrieved by the most up-to-date Cochrane Systematic Review on PFMT for women with UI, and only those of moderate to high quality (>6 on the PEDro scale) were retained. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were scored by two independent reviewers using the CERT, TIDieR, and CONTENT instruments. The completeness of intervention reporting was evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Over half of the items on each instrument were reported less than 50% of the time. Overall, completeness of exercise reporting was 31% (5.8/16 ± 2.4) on CERT, 47% (5.6/12 ± 1.5) on TIDieR, and 46% (4.1/9 ± 1) on CONTENT. The least frequently reported items were the provider of the intervention, the equipment used, the tailoring of exercises, the rationale behind the intervention, and adherence to the intervention. CONCLUSION: PFMT parameters are not adequately reported in the primary RCTs that currently guide clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".