↓ Skip to main content

Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
140 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
435 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007471.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie J Woodley, Rhianon Boyle, June D Cody, Siv Mørkved, E Jean C Hay-Smith

Abstract

About one-third of women have urinary incontinence and up to one-tenth have faecal incontinence after childbirth. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is commonly recommended during pregnancy and after birth for both prevention and treatment of incontinence.This is an update of a review previously published in 2012. To determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in the prevention or treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in pregnant or postnatal women. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (16 February 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials in pregnant or postnatal women. One arm of the trial included PFMT. Another arm was no PFMT, usual antenatal or postnatal care, another control condition, or an alternative PFMT intervention. Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. We extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Populations included: women who were continent (PFMT for prevention), women who were incontinent (PFMT for treatment) at randomisation and a mixed population of women who were one or the other (PFMT for prevention or treatment). We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. The review included 38 trials (17 of which were new for this update) involving 9892 women from 20 countries. Overall, trials were small to moderate sized, and the PFMT programmes and control conditions varied considerably and were often poorly described. Many trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Other than two reports of pelvic floor pain, trials reported no harmful effects of PFMT.Prevention of urinary incontinence: compared with usual care, continent pregnant women performing antenatal PFMT may have had a lower risk of reporting urinary incontinence in late pregnancy (62% less; risk ratio (RR) for incontinence 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.72; 6 trials, 624 women; low-quality evidence). Similarly, antenatal PFMT decreased the risk of urinary incontinence in the mid-postnatal period (more than three to six months' postpartum) (29% less; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; 5 trials, 673 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient information available for the late (more than six to 12 months') postnatal period to determine effects at this time point.Treatment of urinary incontinence: it is uncertain whether antenatal PFMT in incontinent women decreases incontinence in late pregnancy compared to usual care (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13; 3 trials, 345 women; very low-quality evidence). This uncertainty extends into the mid- (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.24; 1 trial, 187 women; very low-quality evidence) and late (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; 2 trials, 869 women; very low-quality evidence) postnatal periods. In postnatal women with persistent urinary incontinence, it was unclear whether PFMT reduced urinary incontinence at more than six to 12 months' postpartum (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; 3 trials; 696 women; very low-quality evidence).Mixed prevention and treatment approach to urinary incontinence: antenatal PFMT in women with or without urinary incontinence (mixed population) may decrease urinary incontinence risk in late pregnancy (26% less; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90; 9 trials, 3164 women; low-quality evidence) and the mid-postnatal period (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1921 women; very low-quality evidence). It is uncertain if antenatal PFMT reduces urinary incontinence risk late postpartum (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; 2 trials, 244 women; low-quality evidence). For PFMT begun after delivery, there was considerable uncertainty about the effect on urinary incontinence risk in the late postnatal period (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.09; 3 trials, 826 women; very low-quality evidence).Faecal incontinence: six trials reported faecal incontinence outcomes. In postnatal women with persistent faecal incontinence, it was uncertain whether PFMT reduced incontinence in the late postnatal period compared to usual care (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.94; 2 trials; 620 women; very low-quality evidence). In women with or without faecal incontinence (mixed population), antenatal PFMT led to little or no difference in the prevalence of faecal incontinence in late pregnancy (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.25; 2 trials, 867 women; moderate-quality evidence). For postnatal PFMT in a mixed population, there was considerable uncertainty about the effect on faecal incontinence in the late postnatal period (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.21; 1 trial, 107 women, very low-quality evidence).There was little evidence about effects on urinary or faecal incontinence beyond 12 months' postpartum. There were few incontinence-specific quality of life data and little consensus on how to measure it. We found no data on health economics outcomes. Targeting continent antenatal women early in pregnancy and offering a structured PFMT programme may prevent the onset of urinary incontinence in late pregnancy and postpartum. However, the cost-effectiveness of this is unknown. Population approaches (recruiting antenatal women regardless of continence status) may have a smaller effect on urinary incontinence, although the reasons for this are unclear. It is uncertain whether a population-based approach for delivering postnatal PFMT is effective in reducing urinary incontinence. Uncertainty surrounds the effects of PFMT as a treatment for urinary incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women, which contrasts with the more established effectiveness in mid-life women.It is possible that the effects of PFMT might be greater with targeted rather than mixed prevention and treatment approaches and in certain groups of women. Hypothetically, for instance, women with a high body mass index are at risk factor for urinary incontinence. Such uncertainties require further testing and data on duration of effect are also needed. The physiological and behavioural aspects of exercise programmes must be described for both PFMT and control groups and how much PFMT women in both groups do, to increase understanding of what works and for whom.Few data exist on faecal incontinence or costs and it is important that both are included in any future trials. It is essential that future trials use valid measures of incontinence-specific quality of life for both urinary and faecal incontinence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 140 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 428 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 86 20%
Student > Master 75 17%
Unspecified 57 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 10%
Researcher 40 9%
Other 133 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 166 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 124 29%
Unspecified 73 17%
Sports and Recreations 17 4%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 43 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 136. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#108,121
of 13,458,925 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#232
of 10,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,698
of 386,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,458,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 386,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.