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 Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast malignancy is the most common cancer in females. Symptoms of pelvic floor disorders and sexual dysfunction secondary to systemic cancer treatment may occur. Non-surgical, non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies, namely pelvic floor muscle (PFM) and education-based therapies, could be beneficial to reduce these symptoms in this population. This systematic review aimed to examine the evidence regarding their effectiveness on bladder, bowel, vaginal, sexual, psychological function, quality of life, and PFM function in breast cancer populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Six databases were searched to identify interventional studies on the effect of PFM therapies, education-based therapies, or combined (multimodal) therapies on any outcome of interest. The search yielded 603 results, from which 12 studies were included. Of these, six (50%) were RCTs, one (8%) was a non-RCT with two groups, and five (42%) were non-RCTs with a single group. Findings suggest that PFM therapies (active) may be beneficial, and education in the format of CBT may improve bladder function. No data were found for bowel function and results from two RCTs were inconclusive to draw conclusions for vaginal function. Sexual function was the most frequently reported outcome. PFM therapies (active > passive) may be beneficial, and education is more likely than not to improve sexual function. For psychological function, PFM therapies (active + passive) may be beneficial, and education is more unlikely than likely to improve psychological function. For quality of life, PFM therapies (active + passive) may be beneficial, and education is more unlikely than likely to improve quality of life, although CBT combined with physical exercise may provide further improvement. PFM therapies (active ± passive) may improve PFM function. Given the limited number of studies and their methodological limitations, caution should be exercised when interpreting these study results. More research is needed to confirm findings and to investigate the clinical value of PFM therapies and combined, multimodal therapies for breast cancer populations. Non-surgical, non-pharmaceutical conservative therapies may be helpful for breast cancer populations. Clinicians should consider the highest level of available evidence to guide their practice and use their clinical judgement to select the treatment components and appropriate dosages.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it