Cited by 7Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studies

Systematic Review of Evidence for Conservative Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Younger Women

Open access
Brown, Claire A., Toong, Ping Jing, Kearney, Rohna, Hagen, Suzanne, McPeake, Joanne·2025·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction Treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is poorly understood in younger women as the majority of prolapse research is conducted in the older population. There is an urgent need to evaluate conservative POP treatments for management in younger women due to high surgical complications and reoperation rates. Methods Systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Included studies were of conservative treatments in women younger than 51 years old. Results From 416 retrieved studies, nine were included in the analysis. Two of three studies found pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) significantly benefited patient reported outcome measures (PROM) compared to educational material. One of three studies found significant improvement in PROM using biofeedback in addition to PFMT versus PFMT alone. Electrical stimulation with PFMT versus PFMT alone (one study) showed significant additional benefit of the combined treatment. Biofeedback and electrical stimulation in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone (one study) was found to provide significant additional benefits. One compared pessary use to no intervention but stopped early due to slow recruitment. Conclusion PFMT improves patient reported outcomes in younger women with POP. Electrical stimulation and biofeedback are useful adjuncts to PFMT. The gap in research investigating the effect of pessaries in younger women warrants further study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-024-05995-x

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 7

Authors
Brown, C. A., Toong, P. J., Kearney, R., Hagen, S., & McPeake, J.
Affiliations
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, Claire A.
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2024-12-12
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
477-490
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W4405323825
Cited by
7
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, Cambridge University Hospitals (900414)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, young women, conservative treatment, pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, electrical stimulation, pessary, patient-reported outcomes, teaching materials
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Conservative Treatment, Adult, Age Factors, Biofeedback, Psychology, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pessaries, 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