Is there a difference in pelvic floor muscle tone between women with and without pelvic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alterations in pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function have been observed in women with persistent noncancer pelvic pain (PNCPP) as compared with women without PNCPP; however, the literature presents conflicting findings regarding differences in PFM tone between women with and without PNCPP. AIM: To systematically review the literature comparing PFM tone in women with and without PNCPP. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2021 for relevant studies. Studies were included that reported PFM tone data in women aged ≥18 years with and without PNCPP. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PFM tone measures were calculated via random effects models. OUTCOMES: Resting PFM tone parameters, including myoelectrical activity, resistance, morphometry, stiffness, flexibility, relaxation, and intravaginal pressure, measured by any clinical examination method or tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven PFM tone parameters were measured. Meta-analyses were conducted for myoelectrical activity, resistance, and anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus. Myoelectrical activity and resistance were higher in women with PNCPP than in women without (SMD = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.36-2.29] and SMD = 2.05 [95% CI, 1.03-3.06], respectively). Women with PNCPP also had a smaller anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus as compared with women without (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.16]). Meta-analyses were not performed for the remaining PFM tone parameters due to an insufficient number of studies; however, results of these studies suggested greater PFM stiffness and reduced PFM flexibility in women with PNCPP than in women without. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Available evidence suggests that women with PNCPP have increased PFM tone, which could be targeted by treatments. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: A comprehensive search strategy was used with no restriction on language or date to review studies evaluating PFM tone parameters between women with and without PNCPP. However, meta-analyses were not undertaken for all parameters because few included studies measured the same PFM tone properties. There was variability in the methods used to assess PFM tone, all of which have some limitations. CONCLUSION: Women with PNCPP have higher PFM tone than women without PNCPP; therefore, future research is required to understand the strength of the relationship between pelvic pain and PFM tone and to investigate the effect of treatment modalities to reduce PFM tone on pelvic pain in this population.
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 | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".