SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Electrical stimulation and biofeedback combined with pelvic floor muscle training for pelvic floor dysfunction in postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) manifests as decreased pelvic floor muscle strength (PFMS), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and impaired sexual function. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the first-line therapy but often limited by poor muscle perception and adherence. Electrical stimulation (ES) and biofeedback (BF) may enhance outcomes, yet their combined effect with PFMT has not been systematically quantified. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed were searched to July 9, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ES+BF+PFMT with PFMT alone were included. The population was restricted to women within 12 months postpartum. Outcomes were PFMS, SUI incidence, POP severity, and sexual function. Pooled mean differences (MD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, publication bias was assessed for outcomes with at least 10 studies, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs were included. ES+BF+PFMT significantly improved PFMS (MD = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.01), reduced SUI incidence (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.49), lowered POP-Q stage (MD=-0.29, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.20), and enhanced sexual function (MD = 4.38, 95% CI: 3.41-5.34). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that Kegel training duration may contribute to PFMS heterogeneity. GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty for SUI incidence, low certainty for PFMS and sexual function, and very low certainty for POP severity. Conclusions: Compared with PFMT alone, ES+BF+PFMT may provide additional benefits for postpartum PFD rehabilitation within the first year, with the most consistent evidence observed for reducing SUI incidence. Potential benefits were also observed for PFMS and sexual function, whereas the POP-Q findings should be interpreted with particular caution because the certainty of evidence was very low. The generalizability of these findings is limited because all included studies were conducted in China. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251134152, identifier CRD420251134152.
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.