MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401798951 · doi:10.1007/s11912-024-01586-7

Effectiveness of Pelvic Floor Muscle and Education-Based Therapies on Bladder, Bowel, Vaginal, Sexual, Psychological Function, Quality of Life, and Pelvic Floor Muscle Function in Females Treated for Gynecological Cancer: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4401798951 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marie‐Pierre Cyr, Tamara L. Jones, Robyn Brennen, Udari N. Colombage, Helena Frawley

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology Reports · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsMedicineSexual functionQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionPelvic floorPelvic Floor MuscleSexual dysfunctionPhysical therapyPopulationGynecologyInternal medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gynecological malignancies are prevalent in females, and this population is likely to experience symptoms of pelvic floor disorders and sexual dysfunction. Non-surgical, non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies, namely pelvic floor muscle (PFM) therapies and education-based interventions, could be beneficial for this population. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding their effectiveness on bladder, bowel, vaginal, sexual, psychological function, quality of life, and PFM function in gynecological cancer populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Six databases were searched to identify studies employing any interventional study design, except case studies, to investigate the effect of PFM therapies, education-based interventions, or combined therapies on any outcome of interest. The search yielded 4467 results, from which 20 studies were included. Of these, 11 (55%) were RCTs, two (10%) were non-RCTs with two groups, and seven (35%) were non-RCTs with a single group. Findings suggest that combined (multimodal) therapies, specifically PFM (active > passive) + education therapies, appear more effective for vaginal, overall pelvic floor, sexual, and PFM function. PFM therapies (active and/or electrostimulation) may improve bladder outcomes. Limited evidence suggests PFM (active) + education therapies may improve bowel function. Conservative therapies may improve psychological function, although available data do not appear to favor a particular therapy. Given the conflicting findings regarding quality of life, no clear conclusions can be made. Interpretation of findings highlighted the importance of intervention dosage, adherence, and supervision for optimal effectiveness. Despite the limitations of the included studies, this review provides new and valuable insights for future research and clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology ReportsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207