Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22426876›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2012

Biofeedback for the treatment of female pelvic floor muscle dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fátima Faní Fitz, Ana Paula Magalhães Resende, Liliana Stüpp, Marair Gracio Ferreira Sartori, Manoel João Batista Castello Girão, Rodrigo Aquino Castro

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Vaginal tactile imaging: A review.Pelviperineology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fátima Faní FitzDepartment of Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. fanifitz@yahoo.com.br
Ana Paula Magalhães Resende
Liliana Stüpp
Marair Gracio Ferreira Sartori
Manoel João Batista Castello Girão
Rodrigo Aquino Castro
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRYahoo (Spain) · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofeedback (BF) has been widely used in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunctions, mainly by promoting patient learning about muscle contraction with no side effects. However, its effectiveness remains poorly understood with some studies suggesting that BF offers no advantage over the isolated pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). The main objective of this study was to systematically review available randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of BF in female pelvic floor dysfunction treatment. Trials were electronically searched and rated for quality by use of the PEDro scale (values of 0-10). Randomized controlled trials assessing the training of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) using BF in women with PFM dysfunction were selected. Outcomes were converted to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Trials were pooled with software used to prepare and update Cochrane reviews. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Twenty-two trials with 1,469 patients that analyzed BF in the treatment of urinary, anorectal, and/or sexual dysfunctions were included. PFMT alone led to a superior but not significant difference in the function of PFM when compared to PFMT with BF, by using vaginal measurement in the short and intermediate term: 9.89 (95 % CI -5.05 to 24.83) and 15.03 (95 % CI -9.71 to 39.78), respectively. We found a few and nonhomogeneous studies addressing anorectal and sexual function, which do not provide the cure rate calculations. Limitations of this review are the low quality and heterogeneity of the studies, involving the usage of distinct protocols of interventions, and various and different outcome measures. The results of this systematic review suggest that PFMT with BF is not more effective than other conservative treatments for female PFM dysfunction.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyFemaleHumansMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalMuscular DiseasesPelvic FloorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrinary Bladder, OveractiveUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID22426876
OpenAlexW1967008010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.