Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41488402›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2025

Pelvic floor complaint profiles in young adult women; a file review study in pelvic physical therapy practices in the Netherlands.

Alma Brand, Wim Waterink, Xynthia Kavelaars, Jacques van Lankveld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Alma BrandFaculty of Psychology, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2084-2120
Wim WaterinkFaculty of Psychology, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Xynthia KavelaarsFaculty of Psychology, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1600-3153
Jacques van LankveldFaculty of Psychology, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-4067

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many patients with pelvic floor complaints, including urinary and fecal incontinence, micturition and defecation problems, pelvic organ prolapses, pelvic pain, and painful intercourse, receive pelvic physical therapy treatment. Based on available evidence, pelvic floor complaint profiles, including these complaints, have not been described using real-world pelvic physical therapy records and multi-complaint clustering methods. Pelvic floor complaint profiles may help to enhance therapists' clinical reasoning and patients' understanding and self-disclosure. Aim: This retrospective file review study explores preliminary complaint profiles and associations between pelvic floor complaints. Method: Pelvic physical therapists entered recorded pelvic floor complaints from self-selected pregnant, parous, and nulliparous patients' files in an online survey. Complaints were extracted from clinical records and coded as binary (recorded/not recorded). Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated, and latent class analysis was performed to gain insight into pelvic floor complaint profiles and their associations with pregnancy and parity. Model selection was based on BIC/log-likelihood statistics and expert clinical review. Results: A model with five profiles was selected based on statistical and theoretical selection criteria. One profile showed the highest probabilities for recorded pelvic pain, one for recorded defecation and micturition problems, one for recorded fecal incontinence and defecation problems, another for recorded pelvic organ prolapses and urinary incontinence, and one for recorded painful intercourse and micturition problems. The first and second profiles appeared most characteristic for pregnant patients, the third and fourth for parous patients, and the fifth for nulliparous patients. Conclusion: The identified profiles may facilitate the inclusion and consideration of potential contributing factors for combined pelvic floor complaints in clinical practice and scientific research. Addressing pelvic floor complaints in profiles may help pelvic healthcare providers during their history-taking, enhance multidisciplinary treatment approaches, and help patients understand experienced combinations of pelvic floor complaints. This may ultimately benefit women's pelvic health.

Indexed as

complaint profileslatent class analysispelvic floor complaints

Identifiers

PMID41488402
PMCPMC12757680

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.