Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment for urinary incontinence in women. A Cochrane systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for stress urinary incontinence. It is sometimes recommended for mixed and less commonly for urge urinary incontinence. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to determine the effects of pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence in comparison to no treatment, placebo or sham treatments, or other inactive control treatments. METHOD: The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Trials Register was searched up until December 1, 2004. The review included randomized or quasi-randomized trials in women with stress, urge or mixed urinary incontinence. One arm of the trial comprised pelvic floor muscle training, the other comprised either no treatment, placebo, sham, or other inactive control treatment. The trials were independently assessed for eligibility and methodological quality. Data were extracted then cross-checked by the two authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook. The trials were sub-grouped by diagnosis. Formal meta-analysis was not undertaken because of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen trials involving 714 women met the inclusion criteria; however, only six trials (403 women) contributed to data analysis. CONCLUSION: Overall, the review provides support for the widespread recommendation that pelvic floor muscle training be included in first-line conservative management programs for women with stress, urge or mixed urinary incontinence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".