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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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