Cited by 146Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchSexual function and dysfunction studies

Does it work in the long term?—A systematic review on pelvic floor muscle training for female stress urinary incontinence

Open access
Bø, Kari, Hilde, Gunvor·2013·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Aims: There is level 1, grade A evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is effective in treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but long‐term outcome has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the long‐term outcome of PFMT for female SUI. Methods: Computerized search on PubMed up to year 2012 was undertaken with the search strategy: pelvic floor AND (urinary incontinence OR stress urinary incontinence) AND (training OR exercise OR physical activity) AND (follow‐up OR long‐term). Limitations were: humans, female, clinical trial, English, and adults. Inclusion criteria were: studies on SUI using PFMT with or without biofeedback as the intervention, follow‐up period of ≥1 year. Exclusion criteria were studies using electrical stimulation alone and studies in the peripartum period. Results: Nineteen studies were included (1,141 women followed between 1 and 15 years). Statistical meta‐analysis was not performed due to high heterogeneity. Only two studies provided follow‐up interventions. Losses to follow‐up during the long‐term period ranged between 0% and 39%. Long‐term adherence to PFMT varied between 10% and 70%. Five studies reported that the initial success rate on SUI and MUI was maintained at long‐term. Long‐term success based on responders to the original trial varied between 41% and 85%. Surgery rates at long term varied between 4.9% and 58%. Conclusions: Short‐term outcome of PFMT can be maintained at long‐term follow‐up without incentives for continued training, but there is a high heterogeneity in both interventional and methodological quality in short‐and long‐term pelvic floor muscle training studies. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32: 215–223, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.22292

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bø, K., & Hilde, G.
Affiliations
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NO)
Corresponding author
Bø, Kari
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-27
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
215-223
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W2150604826
Cited by
146
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, stress urinary incontinence, female urinary incontinence, long-term outcomes, medication adherence, biofeedback, surgical rates, loss to follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Urinary Bladder, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Urodynamics, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Evidence-Based Medicine, Recovery of Function, Physical Therapy Modalities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review