Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31444535›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2020

Pelvic floor muscle training for female stress urinary incontinence: a randomised control trial comparing home and outpatient training.

Fátima Faní Fitz, Márcia Maria Gimenez, Letícia de Azevedo Ferreira, Mayanni Magda Perreira Matias, Maria Augusta Tezelli Bortolini, Rodrigo Aquino Castro

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Diagnosis and management of urinary incontinence in females.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Fátima Faní FitzDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil. fanifitz@yahoo.com.br.ORCID 0000-0002-6371-3193
Márcia Maria GimenezDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil.
Letícia de Azevedo FerreiraDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil.
Mayanni Magda Perreira MatiasDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil.
Maria Augusta Tezelli BortoliniDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil.
Rodrigo Aquino CastroDepartment of Gynaecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 608 - Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04024-002, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisIn the literature, it is suggested that supervised pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) might be the first option treatment for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, inadequate accessibility to health care and scarce individual resources may prevent adherence to the treatment. Our study is aimed at comparing the efficacy of performing PFMT in an outpatient clinic and at home in Brazilian incontinent women, and to verify if home PFMT may be an alternative to those not able to attend the outpatient sessions.

methodsA total of 69 women with predominant SUI were randomised into two groups: outpatient PFMT and home PFMT. The primary outcome was the cure of SUI defined as <2 g of leakage in a 20-min pad test. Secondary outcomes were: pelvic floor muscle function; urinary symptoms; quality of life; patient satisfaction; and adherence to home exercise sets. The assessments were conducted at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Statistical analyses consisted of Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, Chi-squared, and Wilcoxon tests, with a 5% cut-off for significance.

resultsA superior objective cure of SUI was observed in the outpatient clinic (62%) compared with the home (28%) PFMT groups (OR: 4.0 [95% CI: 1.4-11.0]; p = 0.011). Secondarily, there was no difference between groups regarding the following: satisfaction with the treatment; quality of life; function of the PFMs; and number of episodes of urine leakage per week. The home adherence to the exercises was superior in the outpatient PFMT group only during the first-month training.

conclusionsOutpatient PFMT was associated with a higher objective cure of SUI than home PFMT. However, subjective findings show equal benefit of home PFMT providing evidence that this may be an alternative treatment to our population.

Indexed as

Urinary Incontinence, StressBrazilExercise TherapyFemaleHumansOutpatientsPelvic FloorQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeExercisePelvic floor musclePhysical therapy (specialty)RehabilitationStress urinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID31444535
OpenAlexW2969239641

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.