Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36503437›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2022

Conservative non-pharmacological interventions in women with pelvic floor dysfunction: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Ana Carolina Nociti Lopes Fernandes, Domingo Palacios-Ceña, Caroline Caetano Pena, Thaiana Bezerra Duarte, Aura Maria Paternina de la Ossa, Cristine Homsi Jorge

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana Carolina Nociti Lopes FernandesRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP: 14049-900, Brazil.
Domingo Palacios-CeñaUniversity Rey Juan Carlos, Av. Atenas s/n, CP: 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Caroline Caetano PenaRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP: 14049-900, Brazil.
Thaiana Bezerra DuarteUniversity Center of Northern, Av. Joaquim Nabuco, 1232, Centro, Manaus, AM, CEP: 69020-031, Brazil.
Aura Maria Paternina de la OssaRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP: 14049-900, Brazil.
Cristine Homsi JorgeRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP: 14049-900, Brazil. cristine@fmrp.usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4956-4611
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ES

Funding

capes COD 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's adherence is essential to physiotherapeutic treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction, but its related factors are not usually considered in the development of treatment approaches. This study aims to understand how women with pelvic floor dysfunction experience pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options.

methodsA systematic review of qualitative studies. The electronic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Lilacs, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. Primary articles on qualitative methods focused on the experience of women regarding pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological interventions, i.e., pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), either associated or not with biofeedback, perineal massage, vaginal dilators, and others. A meta-aggregation was performed.

resultsIt was included 22 manuscripts in this review. It was found seven studies about the use of vaginal devices, two about manual intervention and 14 studies on women's experience with PFMT. The findings were synthesized as follows: I) women's experience of manual interventions; II) women's experience using vaginal devices changes according to health professional attitudes; III) women's experiences using vaginal devices varied depending on their pelvic floor dysfunction; IV) reported side effects due to the use of vaginal devices; V) external factors influencing PFMT performance; VI) women's perception of their own personal factors influencing PFMT performance; VII) PFMT characteristics influencing women's adherence; VIII) strategies used by women to include PFMT in their routine.

conclusionWomen's experience with pelvic floor conservative non-pharmacological treatment options is a complex phenomenon that involves many more variables than simply personal aspects. This is a systematic review of qualitative studies registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42018080244).

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyPelvic FloorAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansQualitative ResearchPelvic floorPhysiotherapyWomen’s experienceWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID36503437
PMCPMC9743653
OpenAlexW4311123093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.