ArticleMedicine2022
Analysis of the status quo of pelvic floor muscle and the effect of pelvic floor muscle training in second pregnant women.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate the current situation of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) in the second trimester postpartum 42 days by detecting the electrophysiological indexes of PFM on pelvic floor rehabilitation after 2 months.
methodsIn total, 198 cases of second child puerpera were selected, who were delivered in our hospital between June 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020, and underwent outpatient reexamination 42 days after delivery.
resultsExcept for the rest post-baseline stage values, the pelvic floor surface electromyography evaluation values significantly differed from each other at the considered time points in group A, P < .05; on day 72 in group B, no obvious improvement in the evaluation values was observed as than those on day 42 (P > .05) except for the endurance contractions stage values. However, on day 102, all values were markedly different at each considered time point (P < .05). On day 102 postpartum, the evaluation values of group A in the rest pre-baseline stage, the time before and after peak of phasic (flick) contractions stage, and the endurance contractions stage were significantly improved to those in group B with all P < .05. On day 42 after parturition, each index of the tonic contractions stage was higher after spontaneous labor than that after cesarean; the differences were all significant, P < .05, but on day 102 postpartum, all of the values exhibited no difference between the 2 modes. In only the phasic (flick) contractions stage at 42th, were the values of younger mothers obviously higher, P = .025; the other stage values for different ages of women during different time periods were not statistically significant, P > .05.
conclusionsIn the short term, the effect of biofeedback plus electrical stimulation on the PFM function in second pregnant women was better than that of the Kegel exercise, but with time, there was no significant difference between the 2 training methods on the recovery of the PFM.
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.