The Effect of Pelvic Floor Magnetic Stimulation in Women with Myofascial Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a highly prevalent pain condition in which pelvic floor myofascial pain syndrome (MPPS) is also frequently found. Optimal treatments for CPP and MPPS are unknown. The aims of this pilot study were to investigate the effect of pelvic floor magnetic stimulation (MS) in women with MPPS. Treatment effects were compared between patients receiving MS alone, myofascial release therapy (MRT) alone, and MS + MRT. Methods: Patients were divided into three groups: MS, MRT, and MS + MRT. Questionnaires including Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency questionnaire (PUF), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and clinical global impression scale (CGI) were used to assess changes in subjective symptoms before and after treatment. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed by the Modified Oxford Scale and Surface electromyography (sEMG). Pain mapping was used to locate trigger points (TPs) and to score the intensity of pain. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to measure the intensity of pain on a scale of 0 to 10. Changes in the above evaluation indexes within each group and between groups were evaluated after 5 treatment sessions and 10 treatment sessions. Results: Nineteen patients completed the treatment between November 2020 and August 2021. The SF-MPQ and PUF scores decreased significantly (p < 0.01) after treatment. The VAS score for pelvic floor tenderness also decreased significantly after 5 and 10 treatment sessions (p < 0.01). At the end of 10 sessions, the HAMA score was significantly lower than prior to treatment (p < 0.01). Conclusions: This preliminary study shows that MS is effective for the treatment of MPPS. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000030881.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".