Cited by 154Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesUterine Myomas and Treatments

The efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Li, Chunbo, Gong, Yuping, Wang, Bei·2016·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) as a treatment for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or as an adjunct to prolapse surgery.Methods Relevant literature sources were searched using databases including PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EBSCO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM until 5 July 2015. Eligible studies were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCT). The available data were pooled using Review Manager version 5.2. For data deemed not appropriate for synthesis, a narrative overview was conducted.Results In total, 13 studies with 2,340 patients were included. Our results indicated women receiving PFMT gained a greater improvement than controls in prolapse symptom score [mean difference (MD) -3.07, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -3.91 to -2.23] and POP stages [risk ratio (RR) 1.70, 95 % CI 1.19-2.44]. The number of women who said their prolapse was getting better was higher (RR 5.48, 95 % CI 2.19-13.72) and other discomfort syndromes, such as vaginal, bladder, and rectum, were lower in the PFMT groups than in controls. Meanwhile, women after PFMT had greater improvement in muscle strength and endurance but did not show a significant difference for further treatment needs. In addition, the results evaluating PFMT as an adjunct to prolapse surgery were inconclusive because of the variability in methods of measuring outcome.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated women who received PFMT showed a greater subjective improvement in prolapse symptoms and an objective improvement in POP severity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-015-2846-y

Cites

38 of 38 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, C., Gong, Y., & Wang, B.
Affiliations
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Chunbo
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2015-09-25
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
981-992
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2159687866
Cited by
154
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fudan University
  • Linköpings Universitet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, pelvic organ prolapse, prolapse surgery, prolapse severity, muscle strength and endurance, women's health, conservative treatment
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, 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