ArticlePorto biomedical journal2018
Evaluation of the pelvic floor muscles training in older women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review.
Article in Porto biomedical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06705283 (Effects Of Yoga And Whole Body Vibration Training On Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Effects Of Yoga And Whole Body Vibration Training On Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modified lumbo-pelvic exercise to alleviate mild stress urinary incontinence in middle-aged females.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Shift work and hormonal-circadian disruption raise urinary incontinence: a narrative review.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Review
- Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.International journal of women's health · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and predictive factors of pelvic floor muscle training in female urinary incontinence: A retrospective cohort study.Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of pelvic floor muscle training for managing urinary incontinence in women: a scoping review.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- The development of a physical therapy service to treat urinary incontinence: Results of a RE-AIM evaluation.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary incontinence (UI) is defined as any involuntary urine loss that predominantly affects older women. There is evidence that pelvic floor muscles training (PFMT) program is effective on the treatment of pelvic floor (PF) dysfunctions and is considered to be first-line treatment. The evaluation of pelvic floor muscles (PFM) function and strength is central to validate the effectiveness of the training protocol in UI decrease. The Oxford Grading Scale and manometry are fundamental to evaluate the PFM function and strength.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to systematize the scientific evidence about the effects of PFMT in older women, assessing the PF function and strength through Oxford Grading Scale and manometry.
methodsThe research of randomized controlled clinical trials was performed through B-on, EBSCO, PEDro, Pubmed, and SciELO data carried out from 2003 to 2016.
resultsA total of 35 studies were identified, 26 of these were selected and fully analyzed. From the analyzed studies (n = 26), 20 were excluded for not meeting the criteria for inclusion, and only 6 studies were classified as high methodological quality, scoring an overall 4 points according the PEDro scale.
conclusionThe PFMT seems to be effective in treating UI in older women; the Oxford Grading Scale and manometry are considered the most reliable in the random and controlled clinical trials results. However, future investigations with high methodological quality with older women are necessary to support these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.