Strenuous physical activity, exercise, and pelvic organ prolapse: a narrative scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: High-intensity physical activity and exercise have been listed as possible risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of the present study is to conduct a literature review on the prevalence and incidence of POP in women who engage in regular physical activity. In addition, we review the effects of a single exercise or a single session of exercise on pelvic floor support. Finally, the effect of exercises on POP in the early postpartum period is reviewed. METHODS: This is a narrative scoping review. We searched PubMed and Ovid Medline, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to May 2022 with the following MeSH terms: "physical activity" AND "exercise" AND "pelvic floor" AND "pelvic organ prolapse". RESULTS: Eight prevalence studies were retrieved. Prevalence rates of symptomatic POP varied between 0 (small study within different sports) and 23% (Olympic weightlifters and power lifters). Parity was the only factor associated with POP in most studies. Three studies evaluated the pelvic floor after a single exercise or one session of exercise and found increased vaginal descent or increased POP symptoms. One prospective cohort study reported the development of POP after 6 weeks of military parashot training, and one randomized trial reported increased POP symptoms after transverse abdominal training. There is scant knowledge on exercise and POP in the postpartum period. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of POP in sports varies widely. Experimental and prospective studies indicate that strenuous exercise increased POP symptoms and reduced pelvic floor support.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".