Cited by 106Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research

Does pelvic floor muscle training improve female sexual function? A systematic review

Ferreira, Cristine Homsi Jorge, Dwyer, Peter L., Davidson, Melissa, De Souza, Alison, Ugarte, Julio Alvarez, Frawley, Helena C.·2015·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis We performed a review of the literature reporting on the effects of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on female sexual function (SF).Methods Pubmed (from 1946 to December 2014), Ovid Medline (from 1946 to December 2014), CINAHL (from 1937 to December 2014), PsycINFO (from 1805 to December 2014), Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched by two independent reviewers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of PFMT on women's SF published in English were included. Methodological quality was scored using the PEDro scale. Data were analysed qualitatively and interpreted.Results A total of 1341 women were included in the eight RCTs covered by this review. The studies were published between 1997 and 2014. Methodological scores were between 4 and 7. The sample included derived from heterogeneous populations of women. In only one study was SF the primary outcome measure. Pelvic floor dysfunction was an inclusion criterion in the majority of studies. Most studies reported a significant improvement in SF score after PFMT between control and intervention groups.Conclusions Although most studies indicated an improvement of at least one sexual variable in women with pelvic floor dysfunction, and one study demonstrated an improvement in SF in postpartum women selected independently of their continence status, the results need to be interpreted with caution. High-quality RCTs specifically designed to investigate the impact of PFMT on women's SF are required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-015-2749-y

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferreira, C. H. J., Dwyer, P. L., Davidson, M., De Souza, A., Ugarte, J. A., & Frawley, H. C.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Mercy Hospital for Women (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2015-06-14
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1735-1750
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W609366790
Cited by
106
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, female sexual function, pelvic floor dysfunction, postpartum women, women's sexual health, pelvic floor rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Sexual Behavior, Pelvic Floor

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