001     1030928
005     20250203133206.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1055/a-2243-3784
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 0016-5751
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1438-8804
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 2199-6989
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 10.34734/FZJ-2024-05520
|2 datacite_doi
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2024-05520
100 1 _ |a Lange, Sören
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
245 _ _ |a Comparison of Vaginal Pessaries to Standard Care or Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Treating Postpartum Urinary Incontinence: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
260 _ _ |a New York, NY
|c 2024
|b Thieme
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1733987492_21021
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Introduction: To compare three conservative treatment options, standard care, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and vaginal pessaries, for postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) that are accessible to most patients and practitioners in a generalizable cohort.Materials and methods: A multicenter, open-label, parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard care, PFMT, and vaginal cube pessary for postpartum urinary incontinence was conducted in six outpatient clinics. Sample size was based on large treatment effects (Cramers' V > 0.35) with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 for a 3 × 3 contingency table, 44 patients needed to be included in the trial. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Of the 516 women screened, 111 presented with postpartum UI. Of these, 52 were randomized to one of three treatment groups: standard care (n = 17), pelvic floor muscle training (n = 17), or vaginal cube pessary (n = 18). After 12 weeks of treatment, treatment success, as measured by patient satisfaction, was significantly higher in the vaginal pessary group (77.8%, n = 14/18), compared to the standard care group (41.2%, n = 7/17), and the PFMT (23.5%, n = 4/17; χ 2 2,n = 52 = 14.55; p = 0.006, Cramer-V = 0.374). No adverse events were reported. SUI and MUI accounted for 88.4% of postpartum UI.Conclusion: Vaginal pessaries were superior to standard care or PFMT to satisfyingly reduce postpartum UI symptoms. No complications were found.Keywords: pelvic floor muscle training; postpartum; randomized controlled trial; standard care; urinary incontinence; vaginal pessary.
536 _ _ |a 5251 - Multilevel Brain Organization and Variability (POF4-525)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251
|c POF4-525
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Lange, Rainer
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Tabibi, Elham
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Hitschold, Thomas
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Müller, Veronika I.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)131699
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Naumann, Gert
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 5
773 _ _ |a 10.1055/a-2243-3784
|g Vol. 84, no. 03, p. 246 - 255
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2026496-3
|n 03
|p 246 - 255
|t Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
|v 84
|y 2024
|x 0016-5751
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030928/files/Paper%20Comparison%20Lange24.pdf
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030928/files/Paper%20Comparison%20Lange24.gif?subformat=icon
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-1440
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030928/files/Paper%20Comparison%20Lange24.jpg?subformat=icon-1440
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-180
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030928/files/Paper%20Comparison%20Lange24.jpg?subformat=icon-180
856 4 _ |y OpenAccess
|x icon-640
|u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030928/files/Paper%20Comparison%20Lange24.jpg?subformat=icon-640
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1030928
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
|p dnbdelivery
910 1 _ |a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (Ringgold ID: RIN27271) 2   Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN27243) 3   University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (Ringgold ID: RIN30841)
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-HGF)0
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131699
910 1 _ |a HHU Düsseldorf
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)131699
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Natural, Artificial and Cognitive Information Processing
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-520
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-500
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2024
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2023-08-19
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNCND4
|2 HGFVOC
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2023-08-19
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
|d 2025-01-02
|w ger
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b GEBURTSH FRAUENHEILK : 2022
|d 2025-01-02
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2025-01-02
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
|k INM-7
|l Gehirn & Verhalten
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406
980 1 _ |a FullTexts


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21