| Title |
Does pelvic floor muscle training improve female sexual function? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-015-2749-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristine Homsi Jorge Ferreira, Peter L. Dwyer, Melissa Davidson, Alison De Souza, Julio Alvarez Ugarte, Helena C. Frawley |
| Abstract |
We performed a review of the literature reporting on the effects of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on female sexual function (SF). Pubmed (from 1946 to December 2014), Ovid Medline (from 1946 to December 2014), CINAHL (from 1937 to December 2014), PsycINFO (from 1805 to December 2014), Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched by two independent reviewers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of PFMT on women's SF published in English were included. Methodological quality was scored using the PEDro scale. Data were analysed qualitatively and interpreted. A total of 1341 women were included in the eight RCTs covered by this review. The studies were published between 1997 and 2014. Methodological scores were between 4 and 7. The sample included derived from heterogeneous populations of women. In only one study was SF the primary outcome measure. Pelvic floor dysfunction was an inclusion criterion in the majority of studies. Most studies reported a significant improvement in SF score after PFMT between control and intervention groups. Although most studies indicated an improvement of at least one sexual variable in women with pelvic floor dysfunction, and one study demonstrated an improvement in SF in postpartum women selected independently of their continence status, the results need to be interpreted with caution. High-quality RCTs specifically designed to investigate the impact of PFMT on women's SF are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 190 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 20% |
| Unknown | 58 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 22% |
| Psychology | 10 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Unknown | 71 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,883,140
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#769
of 2,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,774
of 278,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#11
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,916 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.