ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2022
Comparison of Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Attendance Based on Referring Provider Specialty.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation of pelvic floor dysfunction after radiation therapy for a rare gynecological cancer: A case report.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Addressing Health Care Access Disparities Through a Public Health Approach to Physical Therapist Practice.Physical therapy · 2024Article
- A pilot trial of movement-based pelvic floor physical therapy to address pelvic floor myofascial pain and lower urinary tract symptoms.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) attendance differs based on referring provider specialty and identify factors related to PFPT initiation and completion.
methodsThis was an institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study examining referrals from female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) and non-FPMRS providers at a single academic medical center to affiliated PFPT clinics over a 12-month period. Demographics, referring specialty and diagnoses, prior treatment, and details regarding PFPT attendance were collected. Characteristics between FPMRS and non-FPMRS referrals were compared and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PFPT initiation and completion.
resultsA total of 497 referrals were placed for PFPT. Compared with non-FPMRS referrals, FPMRS referrals were for patients who were older (54.7 years vs 35.6 years), and had higher parity; more were postmenopausal (56% vs 18%) and had Medicare insurance (22% vs 10%) (all P < 0.001). Most FPMRS referrals were for patients with urinary incontinence (69% vs 31%), whereas non-FPMRS referrals were for patients with pelvic pain (70% vs 27%) (both P < 0.0001). Pelvic floor physical therapy attendance was similar in both groups when comparing rates of initiation (47% vs 45%) and completion (13% vs 16%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with initiation were age 65 years or older, additional therapy provided at referring visit, private insurance, Asian race, pregnant or postpartum at time of referral, and more than 1 referring diagnosis (all P < 0.05). No factors were associated with completion.
conclusionsLess than half of the patients referred to PFPT initiate therapy, and only 15% complete PFPT. The populations referred by FPMRS and non-FPMRS providers are different, but ultimately PFPT utilization is similar.
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.