Completeness of exercise reporting among randomized controlled trials on pelvic floor muscle training for women with pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Aims: This systematic review aimed to assess the completeness of exercise reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, CINHAL, Embase, SCOPUS, and PEDro databases were searched up to October 2020. Full‐text RCTs comparing PFMT to any type of intervention among women with any type and stage of POP were eligible for inclusion. Completeness of intervention was evaluated with t20he template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) and the consensus on exercise reporting template (CERT). Inter‐rater agreement for each item of the tools was calculated. Results: Twenty‐six RCTs were included. None of the studies completely reported all intervention descriptors. On average 57.1% (6.8 ± 2.4; out of 12) of the overall TIDieR items and 35.3% (6.7 ± 2.9; out of 19) of the CERT were well described. In particular, 7 and 5 items were completely reported more than 50% of the time for the TIDieR and CERT, respectively. Frequent shortcomings were the undetailed reporting of information regarding tailoring and modifications of exercises and their adherence. Detailed descriptions of exercise repetitions to enable replication were missing in 53.8%. According to the CERT, only 11.5% of the RCTs sufficiently described the main providers' characteristics. Conclusion: The completeness of PFMT reporting for women with POP is still below desirable standards and it is insufficient to ensure transferability into practice. The present results may add relevant knowledge and contribute to improving adequate reporting of exercise.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 19
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [1]Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27(4): 655‐ 684. 10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y 26984443 · DOI
- [5]Dumoulin C, Hunter KF, Moore K, et al. Conservative management for female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse review 2013: Summary of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35(1): 15‐ 20. 10.1002/nau.22677 25400065 · DOI
- [9]Abell B, Glasziou P, Hoffmann T. Reporting and replicating trials of exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation: do we know what the researchers actually did? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015; 8(2): 187‐ 194. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001381 25737485 · DOI
- [10]Gianola S, Castellini G, Agostini M, et al. Reporting of rehabilitation intervention for low back pain in randomized controlled trials: is the treatment fully replicable? Spine. 2016; 41(5): 412‐ 418. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001290 26926164 · DOI
- [41]Cheung RYK, Lee JHS, Lee LL, Chung TKH, Chan SSC. Vaginal Pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(1): 73‐ 80. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001489 27275798 · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Giagio, S., Innocenti, T., Salvioli, S., Lami, A., Meriggiola, M. C., Pillastrini, P., & Gava, G.
- Affiliations
- IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT)
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences (NL)
- University of Genoa (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Giagio, Silvia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neurourology and Urodynamics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-05-31
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1424-1432
- ISSN
- 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6777
- PMC
- PMC8362041
- OpenAlex
- W3164087208
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- pelvic floor muscle training, pelvic organ prolapse, TIDieR, CERT, intervention description, exercise adherence, women's health
- MeSH terms
- Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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
