Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength and Bothersome Urinary Incontinence After Pregnancy: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent, and women with bothersome UI tend to seek more help. This study was aimed at evaluating the association between pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and bothersome UI in the 1st year postpartum. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted with 504 participants. UI was evaluated by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (online) and PFM strength was assessed via vaginal palpation (Modified Oxford Scale, MOS), at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postpartum. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: At 3 months postpartum, 52% of women had a PFM strength of ≥ 3 MOS, increasing to 84% at 12 months. 42% of women reported UI at 3 months, which remained unchanged by 12 months. PFM strength ≥ 3 MOS was moderately associated with less UI at 3 months (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.94) and at timepoints 6, 9, and 12 months. Antepartum UI was strongly associated with postpartum UI at all time points: 3 months (OR = 10.23, 95% CI 4.90-21.37), 6 months (OR = 7.75, 95% CI 3.95-15.21), 9 months (OR = 9.95, 95% CI 4.61-21.47), and 12 months (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 2.29-9.04). Grade 2 perineal tears were moderately associated with UI at 9 months postpartum (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.11-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: A stronger pelvic floor was associated with less bothersome UI in the 1st year postpartum. UI during pregnancy was most strongly associated with bothersome UI after childbirth. Antenatal screening for UI and promoting PFM training may be warranted to support postpartum recovery and minimize UI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".