Cited by 84Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsPregnancy-related medical researchSexual function and dysfunction studies

Postpartum pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic organ prolapse—a randomized trial of primiparous women

Bø, Kari, Hilde, Gunvor, Stær-Jensen, Jette, Siafarikas, Franziska, Tennfjord, Merete Kolberg, Engh, Marie Ellstrøm·2015·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common and distressing condition. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on prevention and treatment of symptoms and signs of POP in primiparous postpartum women.Study design This was a parallel group assessor blind randomized controlled trial. One hundred seventy-five primiparous postpartum women, mean age 29.8 years (standard deviation 4.1), stratified on major levator ani defects or no defect diagnosed by 3-/4-dimensional ultrasound, participated in a 4-month PFMT starting at 6-8 weeks' postpartum or control. All participants had thorough individual instruction and assessment of ability to perform correct pelvic floor muscle contractions. The PFMT group followed a supervised, weekly group training program and performed 3 sets of 8-12 daily maximal contractions at home. Main outcome was POP stage II or greater assessed by POP quantification and bladder neck position assessed by 3-/4- dimensional transperineal ultrasonography. Secondary outcome was symptoms of vaginal bulge using International Consultation on Incontinence Vaginal Symptoms questionnaire.Results Ninety-six percent of the intervention group adhered to ≥80% of both group and home training sessions. At postintervention, there was no significant risk difference in POP (rational ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-4.75), bladder neck position or symptoms of vaginal bulging.Conclusion No effect was found of postpartum PFMT on POP in primiparous women. More randomized controlled trials are needed before strong conclusions can be drawn on the effect of PFMT on POP in the particular population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.049

Cites

26 of 26 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
Bø, K., Hilde, G., Stær-Jensen, J., Siafarikas, F., Tennfjord, M. K., & Engh, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Bø, Kari
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
212
Issue
1
Pages
38.e1-38.e7
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062330104
Cited by
84
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, pelvic organ prolapse, postpartum women, primiparous women, bladder neck position, pelvic floor rehabilitation, postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction
MeSH terms
Adult, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Parity, Pregnancy, Single-Blind Method, Pelvic Floor, Postpartum Period, 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