International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This manuscript from Chapter 3 of the International Urogynecology Consultation (IUC) on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) describes the current evidence and suggests future directions for research on the effect of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in prevention and treatment of POP. METHODS: An international group of four physical therapists, four urogynecologists and one midwife/basic science researcher performed a search of the literature using pre-specified search terms on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro and Scopus databases for publications between 1996 and 2021. Full publications or expanded abstracts in English or in other languages with abstracts in English were included. The PEDro rating scale (0-10) was used to evaluate study quality. Included RCTs were reviewed to summarize the evidence in six key sections: (1) evidence for PFMT in prevention of POP in the general female population; (2) evidence for early intervention of PFMT in the peripartum period for prevention and treatment of POP; (3) evidence for PFMT in treatment of POP in the general female population; (4) evidence for perioperative PFMT; (5) evidence for PFMT on associated conditions in women with POP; (6) evidence for the long-term effect of PFMT on POP. Full publications in English or in other languages with abstracts in English and expanded abstracts presented at international condition specific societies were included. Internal validity was examined by the PEDro rating scale (0-10). RESULTS: After exclusion of duplicates and irrelevant trials, we classified and included 2 preventive trials, 4 trials in the post-partum period, 11 treatment trials of PFMT for POP in the general female population in comparison with no treatment or lifestyle interventions, 10 on PFMT as an adjunct treatment to POP surgery and 9 long-term treatment trials. Only three treatment studies compared PFMT with the use of a pessary. The RCTs scored between 4 and 8 on the PEDro scale. No primary prevention studies were found, and there is sparse and inconsistent evidence for early intervention in the postpartum period. There is good evidence/recommendations from 11 RCTs that PFMT is effective in reducing POP symptoms and/or improving POP stage (by one stage) in women with POP-Q stage I, II and III in the general female population, but no evidence from 9/10 RCTs that adding PFMT pre- and post -surgery for POP is effective. There are few long-term follow-up studies, and results are inconsistent. There are no serious adverse effects or complications reported related to PFMT. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies on prevention and in the postpartum period, and the effect is inconclusive. There is high-level evidence from 11 RCTs to recommend PFMT as first-line treatment for POP in the general female population. PFMT pre- and post-POP surgery does not seem to have any additional effect on POP. PFMT is effective and safe but needs thorough instruction and supervision to be effective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".