MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021995515 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzaa081

The Effect of Pelvic Floor Muscle Interventions on Pelvic Floor Dysfunction After Gynecological Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3021995515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robyn Brennen, Kuan‐Yin Lin, Linda Denehy, Helena Frawley

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvic Floor MusclePelvic floorPelvic floor dysfunctionCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialSexual functionPhysical therapyPsycINFOQuality of life (healthcare)Cohort studyCervical cancerSexual dysfunctionMEDLINECancerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the evidence from studies that have investigated the effect of nonsurgical, nonpharmacological, pelvic floor muscle interventions on any type of pelvic floor dysfunction or health-related quality of life in patients after any type of treatment for gynecological cancer. METHODS: Six electronic databases (Cochrane Library 2018, CINAHL 1982-2018, MEDLINE 1950-2018, EMBASE 1980-2018, PsycINFO 1806-2018, and EMCARE 1995-2018) were systematically searched in June 2018. Reference lists of identified articles were hand searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series were included if they investigated the effects of conservative treatments, including pelvic floor muscle training or dilator training, on bladder, bowel, or sexual function in patients who had received treatment for gynecological cancer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. RESULTS: Five RCTs and 2 retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 886). The results provided moderate-level evidence that pelvic floor muscle training with counseling and yoga or core exercises were beneficial for sexual function (standardized mean difference = -0.96, 95% CI = -1.22 to -0.70, I2 = 0%) and health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.88, I2 = 0%) in survivors of cervical cancer and very low-level evidence that dilator therapy reduced vaginal complications in survivors of cervical and uterine cancer (odds ratio = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.80, I2 = 54%). There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of bladder or bowel function. CONCLUSION: Conservative pelvic floor muscle interventions may be beneficial for improving sexual function and health-related quality of life in survivors of gynecological cancer. Given the levels of evidence reported in this review, further high-quality studies are needed, especially to investigate effects on bladder and bowel function. IMPACT: This review provides moderate-level evidence for the role of pelvic floor rehabilitation to improve health outcomes in the gynecological cancer survivorship journey. Clinicians and health service providers should consider how to provide cancer survivors the opportunity to participate in supervised pelvic floor rehabilitation programs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations66
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207