ArticleBMC women's health2026
Feasibility and short-term comparative outcomes of a digital-assisted community-based electrical stimulation rehabilitation program for postmenopausal women with pelvic floor dysfunction: a non-randomized controlled study.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and short-term comparative outcomes of a community-based BES rehabilitation program assisted by a digital service package for postmenopausal women with PFD, and to explore whether pelvic floor muscle strength outcomes were compatible with a prespecified exploratory margin compared with tertiary hospital care.
methodsWe conducted a non-randomized controlled study involving 200 community-dwelling postmenopausal women with PFD. Participants in the intervention group received community-based BES plus a digital service package, while contemporaneous controls received standard BES care at a tertiary hospital. Follow-up lasted 1 month. Because treatment allocation was non-randomized, doubly robust estimation and multivariable regression were used to reduce measured confounding; findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than causal.
resultsThe observed rate differences in improvement of Type I and Type II pelvic floor muscle strength were 0.008 and 0.054, respectively. The lower bounds of the 98.75% confidence intervals remained above the prespecified exploratory margin of - 0.20, suggesting that the observed differences were compatible with the prespecified exploratory margin in this exploratory analysis. While no significant between-group difference was found for self-perceived symptom severity, the intervention group was associated with higher self-reported adherence (β = 4.604, P < 0.001), health knowledge awareness (β = 24.419, P < 0.001), and quality of life (OR = 5.292, P = 0.023). Feasibility metrics were favorable, with a mean System Usability Scale score of 81.40. However, given the non-randomized design and the prespecified margin, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.
conclusionsThis pragmatic, digital-assisted community-based rehabilitation program appears feasible and was associated with favorable short-term outcomes in postmenopausal women with PFD. Compared with tertiary hospital care, the integrated community-based program showed pelvic floor muscle strength outcomes that were compatible with the prespecified exploratory margin, while also being associated with higher self-reported adherence, health knowledge, and quality of life. However, because of the non-randomized design, retrospective registration, short follow-up, and potential residual confounding, these findings should be considered preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory evidence of non-inferiority, equivalence, or causal effects. REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400088675); Registered on 23 August 2024, retrospectively registered.
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.