Cited by 17Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesUterine Myomas and Treatments

Efficacy of biofeedback on quality of life in stages I and II pelvic organ prolapse: A Pilot study

Ahadi, Tannaz, Taghvadoost, Neda, Aminimoghaddam, Soheila, Forogh, Bijan, Bazazbehbahani, Roxana, Raissi, Gholam Reza·2017·European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Abstract

Objectives Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a prevalent disorder which seriously affects the sufferer's quality of life. The main goal of this study was to evaluate biofeedback impact on quality of life in women with mild to moderate POP.Study design 40 females in stages I and II POP were allocated into 2 groups. One group received pelvic floor muscle exercise and lifestyle advice in addition to biofeedback twice a week for 4 weeks, while the other received a lifestyle advice sheet and pelvic floor muscle exercise without biofeedback. A valid Persian version of P-QOL questionnaire was applied to assess the patients̕ quality of life at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks follow up. Pressure biofeedback and Physical examination were also performed in order to determine pelvic floor muscle strength and staging of the prolapse, respectively. Collected data were analyzed by mixed ANOVA test using SPSS 22.Results Biofeedback improved the quality of life in seven of nine P-QOL domains. However, it had no significant impact either on pelvic floor muscle strength or on the stage of the prolapse.Conclusion Biofeedback could be considered as a non-invasive treatment leading to quality of life promotion in women with stages I and II POP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.06.023

Cites

20 of 20 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
Ahadi, T., Taghvadoost, N., Aminimoghaddam, S., Forogh, B., Bazazbehbahani, R., & Raissi, G. R.
Affiliations
Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Raissi, Gholam Reza
Venue
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
215
Pages
241-246
ISSN
  • 0028-2243 (ISSN-L)
  • 0301-2115
OpenAlex
W2624821406
Cited by
17
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 organ prolapse, biofeedback, quality of life, pelvic floor muscle strength, pelvic floor muscle training, lifestyle advice, non-invasive treatment, women's health
MeSH terms
Adult, Biofeedback, Psychology, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Muscle Strength, 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