ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a risk of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) from baby delivery. Many clinical guidelines recommend pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) as the conservative treatment for PFD because pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) play a crucial role in development of PFD. However, there is disagreement about the method and intensity of PFM training and the relevant measurements. To pilot the study in PFM training, we designed a Pelvic Floor Workout (PEFLOW) for women to train their pelvic through entire body exercises, and we planned a trial to evaluate its effectiveness through comparing the outcomes from a group of postpartum women who perform PELFLOW at home under professional guidance online with the control group. METHODS/DESIGN: The randomized controlled trial was projected to be conducted from November 2021 to March 2023. A total of 260 postpartum women would be recruited from the obstetrics departments of the study hospital and women would be eligible for participation randomized into experimental or control groups (EG/CG) if their PFM strength are scaled by less than Modified Oxford grading Scale (MOS) to be less than grade 3. Women in EG would perform a 12-week PEFLOW online under the supervision and guidance of a physiotherapist, while women in CG would have no interventions. Assessments would be conducted at enrollment, post intervention (for EG) or 18th to 24th week postpartum (for CG), and 1 year postpartum. Assessment would be performed in terms of pelvic floor symptoms, including MOS, cough stress test, urinary leakage symptoms, pelvic organ prolapse quantitation (POP-Q), and vaginal relaxation, clinic examinations including Pelvic floor electrophysiological test, Pelvic floor ultrasound and Spine X-ray, overall body test including trunk endurance test, handgrip test, body composition test, and questionnaires including International Physical Activity Questionnaire Score-Short Form(IPAQ-SF), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7), the 6-item Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-6), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Primary analysis will be performed to test our main hypothesis that PEFLOW is effective with respect to strengthen PFM strength. DISCUSSION: This trial will demonstrate that pelvic floor-care is accessible to most women and clinical practice on PFD may change relevantly should this study find that Online PEFLOW approach is effective to improve PFMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05218239.
Subject(s)
Pelvic Floor Disorders , Pelvic Floor , Exercise Therapy/methods , Female , Hand Strength , Humans , Pelvic Floor/physiology , Pelvic Floor Disorders/therapy , Postpartum Period , Pregnancy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Recovery of FunctionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As a serious global problem, knee osteoarthritis (KOA) often leads to pain and disability. Manual therapy is widely used as a kind of physical treatment for KOA. AIM: To explore further the efficacy of Maitland and Mulligan mobilization methods for adults with KOA. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science and Google Scholar from inception to September 20, 2020 to collect studies comparing Maitland and Mulligan mobilization methods in adults with KOA. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale for randomized controlled trials. Data analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 341 articles were screened from five electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science and Google Scholar) after excluding duplicates. Ultimately, eight trials involving 471 subjects were included in present systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean PEDro scale score was 6.6. Mulligan mobilization was more effective in alleviating pain [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17 to 1.03, P = 0.007; I 2 = 60%, P = 0.020) and improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities function score (SMD = 7.41; 95%CI: 2.36 to 12.47, P = 0.004; I 2 = 92%, P = 0.000). There was no difference in the effect of the two kinds of mobilization on improving the range of motion (SMD = 9.63; 95%CI: -1.23 to 20.48, P = 0.080; I 2 = 97%, P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Mulligan mobilization technique is a promising intervention in alleviating pain and improving function score in KOA patients.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic value of white blood cells detected for the first time after adjuvant chemotherapy in primary operable non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: From January 2010 to May 2016, data from 208 patients who underwent surgery for non-small cell lung cancer were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A white blood cell count detected for the first time after adjuvant chemotherapy greater than 7.00 was an independent predictor of poor disease-free survival (Hazard ratio: 1.736, 95% confidence interval: 1.267-2.378; P = .001) and overall survival (Hazard ratio: 1.802, 95% confidence interval: 1.305-2.471; P = .000). In a further study, after myelosuppression, survival analysis indicated that the patients with white blood cell counts <2.5 had poorer survival than patients with blood cell counts 2.5 to 4.0, P = .031. When the analysis was stratified by the type of histology, patients with a white blood cell count >7.00 and increased white blood cell after chemotherapy compared to pretreatment had a poorer prognosis than patients with white blood cell ≤7.00 and no increase in white blood cell, P = .000 and P = .002, respectively. We further evaluated the prognosis of the 2 groups in different levels of white blood cell. In the group of patients with white blood cell ≤4.0, patients with chemotherapy cycles ≤2, and >2 showed no differences (Hazard ratio: 2.346, 95% confidence interval: 0.288-19.073, P = .425). In the group of patients with white blood cell of 4.0 to 7.0, the prognosis of patients with chemotherapy cycles ≤2 and patients with chemotherapy cycles >2 showed no difference (Hazard ratio: 0.560, 95% confidence interval: 0.248-1.261, P = .161). In the group of patients with white blood cell >7.0, patients with >2 chemotherapy cycles had a better prognosis than patients with chemotherapy cycles ≤2 (Hazard ratio: 0.573, 95% confidence interval: 0.338-0.971, P = .037) Conclusions: The level of white blood cells detected for the first time after adjuvant chemotherapy is an independent risk factor for non-small cell lung cancer, especially for patients with nonadenocarcinoma. In addition, the level of white blood cells after postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and its change compared with pretreatment might also provide useful information regarding the best choice of cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.
