Cited by 67Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesPregnancy-related medical research

Pelvic floor muscle training is better than hypopressive exercises in pelvic organ prolapse treatment: An assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial

Resende, Ana Paula M., Bernardes, Bruno T, Stüpp, Liliana, Oliveira, Emerson, Castro, Rodrigo A., Girão, Manoel J.B.C., Sartori, Marair G.F.·2019·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Aims: To verify if hypopressive exercises (HEs) can improve pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms equally or better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). Methods: Randomized controlled trial. Symptomatic women with untreated stage II POP according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP‐Q) having the ability to contract their pelvic floor muscles were invited. The outcome measures were POP symptoms as measured by specific questions and Prolapse Quality of Life (P‐QoL); POP severity as measured by POP‐Q; and PFM function. Intervention consisted by 12 weeks of PFMT or an HE home exercise program with bimonthly sessions with a physiotherapist. The protocol consisted of three initial sessions to learn how to perform the exercises correctly, followed by 3 months of exercise with monthly progression. Volunteers filled out exercise diaries to record their compliance. Results: PFMT presented better results in terms of the following symptoms: a bulge/lump from or in the vagina, heaviness or dragging on the lower abdomen, and stress incontinence. PFMT also presented better results regarding the Prolapse impact and role, social and personal limitations of P‐QoL. Regarding the total number of symptoms at the end, the PFMT group presented a mean of 1.7 (±1.2), and the HE group presented a mean of 2.8 (±1,1); the effect size was 1.01 in favor of the PFMT group (95%CI = 1.002‐1.021). Conclusion: Both groups exhibited improvements in POP symptoms, quality of life, prolapse severity, and PFM function. PFMT was superior to HE for all outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.23819

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 67

Authors
Resende, A. P. M., Bernardes, B. T., Stüpp, L., Oliveira, E., Castro, R. A., Girão, M. J. B. C., & Sartori, M. G. F.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Resende, Ana Paula M.
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-12
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
171-179
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W2896712608
Cited by
67
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2007/08246‐8)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, hypopressive exercises, pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor muscle function, stress urinary incontinence, home exercise program, physiotherapy, exercise adherence, POP-Q
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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