Effects of Non-Invasive Radiofrequency Diathermy in Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: In recent years, the use of radiofrequency diathermy in pelvic floor disorders has grown proportionally to the interest in this specialty. Despite the common use of this therapy among pelvic floor physiotherapists, little is known about its effects and effectiveness in pelvic floor disorders. For this reason, the aim of the present review is to assess the effects of non-invasive 300 kHz–1 MHz radiofrequency diathermy in the treatment of pelvic floor disorders. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, searching for any type of study that included pelvic floor disorder participants and an experimental group treated with non-invasive nor ablative radiofrequency diathermy. Results: There were a total of 578 studies after removing duplicates. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, resulting in a total of 15 studies, which were methodologically assessed with PEDro and the Newcastle and Ottawa scale. Conclusions: Despite the low quality of most of them, the studies showed improvements in urinary incontinence, pelvic pain conditions, pelvic floor muscles strength and sexual function. These findings must be considered with caution until more randomized clinical trials are performed to solve the biases detected.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".