Effects of Exercise-Based Interventions on Urogenital Outcomes in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this systematic review, objectives were to investigate dropout rates, adverse events, and effects of exercise-based therapies on urogenital function and quality of life (QoL) in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Database searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for studies examining any form of exercise intervention on urogenital function and/or QoL in adults with SCI. Quality of publications was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical evaluation tools. When possible, Hedges' g was calculated for overall effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were conducted on sex and injury severity. Ten studies (228 participants) were included in this review. Three studies examined pelvic floor muscle training, and seven studies examined locomotor training. Overall quality of evidence was low because of small sample sizes and non-randomized designs in most studies. Dropout rates ranged from 12% to 25%, and adverse events were reported only in some studies investigating locomotor training. For lower urinary tract (LUT) outcomes, urodynamic findings were mixed despite moderately positive changes in maximum bladder capacity ( g = 0.50) and bladder compliance ( g = 0.37). Fairly consistent, but small, improvements were observed in LUT symptoms, primarily bladder awareness and incontinence. LUT QoL improved in most cases. Fewer data were available for sexual outcomes, and only minor improvements were reported. Subgroup analyses, based on sex and severity of injury, were inconclusive. There is some indication for the potential benefit of exercise on urogenital outcomes in persons with SCI, but there is insufficient evidence given the number of studies and heterogeneity of outcome measures.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".