Does the Contractile Capability of Pelvic Floor Muscles Improve with Knowledge Acquisition and Verbal Instructions in Healthy Women? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy percent of women with pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) are estimated to present deficient consciousness of their pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) and poor ability to contract them. Improving the proprioception of PFMs, defined as the capacity to know the status and position of each body part, and adequately contracting them could be a protective factor to prevent the appearance of PFDs in the general female population. This study aimed to identify the effectiveness of educational interventions and verbal instructions on how to contract and exercise the PFMs to improve the proprioception of the PFMs in women. A systematic search of studies published in the last 20 years until March 2022 was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, Lilacs, and Dialnet databases. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity in the types of studies and included populations. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines for the design, search, and reporting of studies. The methodological quality was analysed via the PEDro and the Newcastle-Ottawa scales in the case of randomised clinical trials and non-randomised studies, respectively, while the quality of evidence was determined using the SIGN grading system for evidence-based guidelines. Descriptive and experimental studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese that evaluated the contractile capability of the PFMs in healthy women or women without a previous diagnosis of PFD were included. Seven articles that included a total of 2507 women were found, three of which were clinical trials with PEDro scores between 5 and 9 points out of 10 and four of which were non-randomised studies with NOS scores between 6 and 8 points out of 10. The outcomes were measured through vaginal palpation, visual observation, questionnaires for PFD symptoms, and self-perception reports. This review discriminated between two types of intervention, educational programmes and verbal instructions, and evaluated the changes observed in PFM strength and knowledgeability and the symptoms of PFDs. The findings showed that educational interventions and verbal instructions improve the proprioception of PFMs in women of all ages that are healthy or without a previous diagnosis of PFDs as well as their knowledge about the pelvic floor, healthy lifestyle habits, and symptoms that are potentially indicative of PFDs. Further high-quality randomised clinical trials are warranted to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of educational interventions to improve the proprioception of the PFMs in women considered healthy or with mild symptoms that may be indicative of PFDs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".