SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Effects of prehabilitation interventions on pelvic floor muscle outcomes in patients with gynecological cancers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a highly prevalent sequela of gynecological cancer therapy (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy), severely impacting quality of life (QoL). This systematic review evaluates evidence on prehabilitation interventions initiated before or during primary cancer therapy for improving pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, reducing PFD symptoms, and enhancing QoL.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Web of Science (2010–2025) for randomized controlled trials, cohort, and quasi-experimental studies. The review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42024580658). Included studies involved gynecological cancer patients receiving structured prehabilitation reporting PFM outcomes, PFD symptoms, or QoL. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI tools and GRADE.
resultsFive heterogeneous studies (N = 255; endometrial, ovarian, cervical, uterine, vulvar cancers; mean age 42–66 years) were included. One comparative cohort study demonstrated improved postoperative recovery (6MWT: 404 m vs. 371 m, p < 0.001) and reduced complications (30% vs. 54%, p = 0.02). Uncontrolled studies showed potential benefits including improved lean mass (+ 1.0 kg, p = 0.015), reduced incontinence (urinary: 53.6%→46.4%; fecal: 39.3%→25.0%), and enhanced QoL domains, with adherence 52–98%. However, direct evidence for improved objective PFM strength remains lacking. Evidence quality was “very low” (GRADE) due to heterogeneity, uncontrolled designs, small samples, and moderate-to-high risk of bias.
conclusionPrehabilitation is feasible but evidence is insufficient for definitive conclusions on pelvic-floor-specific efficacy. Findings are hypothesis-generating. High-quality RCTs with standardized PFD outcome measures are urgently needed. This review identifies critical knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for future research.
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.