SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Most of the pelvic floor muscle functions in women differ in different body positions, yet others remain similar: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of body position on the measurement of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contractility and to analyze the influential factors. Data sources: Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies published up to 12nd October 2023. Study selection or eligibility criteria: Included cross-sectional studies had to involve the assessment of pelvic floor muscle function in at least two positions. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to ascertain the potential effect of body position on outcomes. Results: In total, we included 11 cross-sectional studies to ascertain the potential effect of body position on outcomes. There was no statistical difference in the results of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the pelvic floor muscles when assessed in between supine and standing positions (SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.72 to 0.28; Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the RVC and PFM movement varied with the position of the assessment. In contrast, MVC values are independent of the assessment position and can be selected according to clinical needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022363734, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022363734.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.