Impact of postpartum exercise on pelvic floor disorders and diastasis recti abdominis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of exercise during the first year postpartum on pelvic floor disorders and diastasis recti abdominis. DESIGN: Systematic review with random effects meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 12 January 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies of all designs (except case studies) and languages were included if they contained information on the Population (individuals in the first year postpartum), Intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume or type of exercise alone ('exercise-only') or in combination with other intervention (eg, biofeedback; 'exercise+co-intervention')), Comparator (no exercise or different exercise measures) and Outcome (symptom severity and risk of urinary incontinence, anal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, diastasis recti abdominis and sexual function). RESULTS: 72%) and pelvic organ prolapse by 56% (one RCT, n=123; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.91) compared with control groups. 'Low' certainty of evidence showed a greater reduction in inter-rectus distance measured at rest and during a head lift following abdominal muscle training compared with no exercise. Evidence on the effect of exercise on the risk of anal incontinence and diastasis recti abdominis, as well as the severity of anal incontinence, urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function, is limited. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the effectiveness of postpartum pelvic floor muscle training in reducing the odds of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse and postpartum abdominal exercise training in reducing inter-rectus distance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022359282.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".