Cited by 126Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studiesUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research

Effect of pelvic floor muscle training compared with watchful waiting in older women with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse: randomised controlled trial in primary care

Open access
Wiegersma, M., Panman, C. M. C. R., Kollen, B. J., Berger, M. Y., Lisman-Van Leeuwen, Y., Dekker, J. H.·2014·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training and watchful waiting on pelvic floor symptoms in a primary care population of women aged 55 years and over with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Dutch primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 55 years or over with symptomatic mild prolapse (leading edge above the hymen) were identified by screening. Exclusion criteria were current prolapse treatment or treatment in the previous year, malignancy of pelvic organs, current treatment for another gynaecological disorder, severe/terminal illness, impaired mobility, cognitive impairment, and insufficient command of the Dutch language. INTERVENTIONS: Pelvic floor muscle training versus watchful waiting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in bladder, bowel, and pelvic floor symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), three months after the start of treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in condition specific and general quality of life, sexual function, degree of prolapse, pelvic floor muscle function, and patients' perceived change in symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 287 women who were randomised to pelvic floor muscle training (n=145) or watchful waiting (n=142), 250 (87%) completed follow-up. Participants in the intervention group improved by (on average) 9.1 (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 15.4) points more on the PFDI-20 than did participants in the watchful waiting group (P=0.005). Of women in the pelvic floor muscle training group, 57% (82/145) reported an improvement in overall symptoms from the start of the study compared with 13% (18/142) in the watchful waiting group (P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes showed no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although pelvic floor muscle training led to a significantly greater improvement in PFDI-20 score, the difference between the groups was below the presumed level of clinical relevance (15 points). Nevertheless, 57% of the participants in the intervention group reported an improvement of overall symptoms. More studies are needed to identify factors related to success of pelvic floor muscle training and to investigate long term effects.Trial registration Dutch Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl) identifier: NTR2047.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.g7378

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Hagen S, Glazener C, Cook J, Herbison P, Toosz-Hobson P. Further properties of the pelvic prolapse symptom score: minimally important change and test-retest reliability. Neurol Urodyn 2010; 29: 1055-6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiegersma, M., Panman, C. M. C. R., Kollen, B. J., Berger, M. Y., Lisman-Van Leeuwen, Y., & Dekker, J. H.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Dekker, J. H.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-12-22
Volume
349
Issue
dec22 1
Pages
g7378-g7378
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157103386
Cited by
122
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (4201.1001)
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, expectant management, pelvic organ prolapse, older women, pelvic floor symptoms, bladder symptoms, bowel symptoms, quality of life, sexual function, pelvic floor muscle function, primary care, non-surgical management
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Physical Therapy Modalities, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Watchful Waiting

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