Psycho-rehabilitation adaptation of pregnant women and mothers in the postpartum period who experienced traumatic events during the war

doi:10.57125/fem.2022.09.30.01

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biofeedback may improve the cure rate and strength of PFME but not affect the frequency and amount of leakage or quality of life because improvement in the strength of PFME strength does not mean by default improvement of the other outcomes because it is expected to still experience leakage with a considerable amount and frequency as leakage does not directly relate to the power of PFME but also other factors as bladder capacity, individual habits and smooth muscle tone, which not related to biofeedback mechanism [48,51,52]. Also, it is expected that the benefits of biofeedback on these outcomes to take a longer time to be effective [53][54][55]. Also, the non-significant superiority of the effect of adding BF to PFME over PFME alone regarding the amount of leakage rate could be attributed to the evaluation tool.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pelvic floor muscle exercises plus biofeedback versus pelvic floor muscle exercises for patients with stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a widespread illness that mostly affects women, particularly those who have recently given birth or gone through menopause. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) plus biofeedback to PFME alone in treating SUI in female patients. Methods: We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception until February 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing patients who had undergone PFME plus biofeedback to PFME alone. For risk of bias-2 (RoB2) assessment, we used cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratio with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 15 RCTs were included, with a total of 788 patients with SUI. The overall effect estimate between PFME+BF and PFME alone groups favored the PFME+BF group in improving PFME strength (SMD=0.33, 95% CI [0.14 to 0.52], p=.0009) and did not favor either of the two groups for quality of life (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), leakage (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI [-0.37 to 0.17], p=0.47), pad weight test (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), cure rate (odd ratio [OR]=2.44, 95% CI [0.52 to 11.42, p=0.26), and social activity (SMD=0.66, 95% CI [-0.04 to 1.36], p=0.07). Conclusion: BF addition to PRME improves cure rate and PFME strength without affecting leakage or quality of life. Healthcare providers must consider patient safety and comfort while choosing BF devices with PFME. SUI management strategies should include BF to improve results.

show abstract