Pelvic floor physical therapy: what the evidence shows

Pelvic floor physical therapy is a group of treatments, including muscle training, biofeedback and manual therapy, delivered by trained clinicians. ^{[2][6][7][17]} The research on it is uneven. For urinary incontinence in women, it rests on dozens of randomized trials. For pelvic organ prolapse, the evidence is smaller but points the same direction. For chronic pelvic pain, vulvar pain and endometriosis-related pain, the trials are fewer and smaller, and the benefits reported come with more uncertainty. Across all of these areas, the studies describe groups of participants, not what will happen to one person. This article reviews what the studies found, who took part, how they were designed and where they stop. ^[4][18]

What "pelvic floor physical therapy" refers to

The words describe a setting and a set of methods. The setting is a clinician, usually a physical therapist or physiotherapist, who assesses and treats the muscles at the base of the pelvis. The methods vary a great deal.

Standard vocabulary helps researchers say what they measured. The International Continence Society published a consensus report on terminology for pelvic floor muscle assessment. It contains 185 definitions and descriptors for symptoms, signs, investigations and diagnoses, built through 12 rounds of working group and external review. ^[1] A joint report from the International Urogynecological Association and the International Continence Society defines more than 200 terms for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of pelvic floor dysfunction. ^[2] Both are consensus documents. They record agreed language, not trial results, and they do not say how well any treatment works. ^[1][2]

In the trials reviewed below, the intervention might be any of the following:

• Repeated voluntary contractions of the pelvic floor muscles, often called pelvic floor muscle training. One Cochrane review defined this "direct" training as repeated, isolated, voluntary contractions. ^[6]
• Training that adds feedback or biofeedback, which gives the person information about whether the muscles are contracting. ^[7]
• Manual techniques applied by a clinician, such as myofascial physical therapy. ^[17]
• Education, dilators and other elements, combined in what researchers call multimodal physical therapy. ^[18][24]

Each trial names its components. When an article says that "physical therapy helped," the useful question is which components were tested, in whom, and compared with what.

Why technique and instruction come up in the research

One reason trials differ in their results is that a pelvic floor contraction is hard to perform and hard to see. A 1991 study tested 47 women who received brief standardized verbal instruction in how to do a Kegel contraction. Researchers measured urethral pressure at rest and during the contraction. Twenty-three women (49%) produced what the authors called an ideal contraction. Twelve (25%) used a technique that could potentially promote incontinence. Age, parity, weight, estrogen deprivation, prior surgery and baseline urethral function did not predict who succeeded. The authors concluded that simple verbal or written instruction was not adequate preparation for starting an exercise program. ^[3]

This was a small study from more than three decades ago, and it used a specific physiological measurement. It does not describe how instruction works today, and it did not test whether supervised instruction improves the contraction. ^[3]

Urinary incontinence: the largest body of evidence

Most trials of pelvic floor muscle training enroll women with urinary incontinence, so most of the strongest evidence sits here.

Training compared with no treatment

The main trial evidence is summarized in a Cochrane review last updated in 2018. The review included 31 randomized or quasi-randomized trials with 1,817 women from 14 countries. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, sham or other inactive control. ^[4] Among women with stress incontinence, 56% in the training groups reported cure at the end of treatment versus 6% in control groups (risk ratio 8.38, 95% confidence interval 3.68 to 19.07; four trials, 165 women; rated high-quality evidence). Among women with any type of incontinence, the figures were 35% versus 6% (three trials, 290 women; moderate-quality evidence). For cure or improvement in stress incontinence, the figures were 74% versus 11% (three trials, 242 women). ^[4]

The reviewers also described the limits. Trials were small to moderate in size, follow-up was generally shorter than 12 months, and many were at moderate risk of bias. Programs, populations and outcome measures varied widely. Only one trial enrolled women with mixed incontinence and only one enrolled women with urgency incontinence alone, so those groups have much thinner evidence. ^[4]

A later Cochrane review pooled 63 trials with 4,920 women to compare different ways of doing training. Participants were mostly parous women aged 45 to 65 with stress or stress-predominant mixed incontinence, and most had no earlier incontinence treatment or pelvic surgery. ^[6] Women with neurological conditions, and women who were pregnant or recently postpartum, were excluded, so the findings may not apply to them. ^[6]

Adding biofeedback

Biofeedback uses a sensor and a display so that a person can see muscle activity. A 2025 Cochrane review included 41 completed studies with 3,483 women. ^[7] Compared with training alone, biofeedback made little or no difference to incontinence-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence from 11 studies and 1,169 women). Women randomized to biofeedback had 0.29 fewer leakage episodes in 24 hours (12 studies, 932 women; moderate certainty), a difference the reviewers said may not be clinically important. Cure or improvement was probably little different between groups (moderate certainty), though satisfaction may have been higher with biofeedback (low certainty). None of these outcomes were blinded, and eight studies assessing severe adverse events reported none. ^[7]

The largest single trial in that area is the OPAL trial. It enrolled 600 women newly presenting with stress or mixed incontinence at 23 community and secondary care centers in Scotland and England. Half were assigned to training with electromyographic biofeedback and half to training alone. Both groups were offered six appointments with a continence therapist over 16 weeks. The primary outcome was self-reported severity on the ICIQ-UI SF questionnaire at 24 months. Mean scores were 8.2 in the biofeedback group and 8.5 in the training-only group (mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75). Costs and quality-adjusted life years were also similar. Forty-eight participants reported an adverse event, and 23 of those were judged related or possibly related to the interventions. The authors concluded that routine electromyographic biofeedback should not be recommended and that other ways of maximizing the effects of training should be investigated. ^[5]

Comparing different ways of delivering training

If training works, the next question is how best to deliver it. The 2024 Cochrane review of 63 trials sorted comparisons by exercise type, dose and delivery. Many of its conclusions were rated low or very low certainty. ^[6]

• Training done more days per week may have greatly improved incontinence quality of life compared with fewer days, but that result came from a single trial of 68 women. ^[6]
• Individually supervised training probably made little to no difference compared with group supervision (five trials, 544 women; moderate certainty). ^[6]
• Clinic supervision compared with home training showed a possible slight advantage, but the evidence was very uncertain (three trials, 137 women). ^[6]
• Clinic supervision compared with supervision through a mobile app showed possibly little to no difference, again from one trial and with very low certainty. ^[6]

Several planned comparisons had no usable data at all, including maximal versus submaximal contractions and upright versus lying positions. For the questions of how much, how often and in which body position, the review mostly shows where trials are missing. ^[6]

Training compared with surgery

The PORTRET trial, conducted in the Netherlands, compared physiotherapy with midurethral sling surgery as first treatment for stress incontinence. ^[8][9] It randomized 230 women to each group at multiple centers. Crossover was allowed. At 12 months, 90.8% of women in the surgery group and 64.4% of women in the physiotherapy group reported subjective improvement (absolute difference 26.4 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 18.1 to 34.5). Subjective cure was reported by 85.2% and 53.4%, and objective cure rates were 76.5% and 58.8%. ^[8] Many women in the physiotherapy group changed treatment. In all, 49.0% of the physiotherapy group crossed over to the alternative, compared with 11.2% of the surgery group. ^[8]

A follow-up study at 12 years reached 184 of 386 women (47.7%) with a questionnaire. Crossover from the physiotherapy group to surgery had reached 86.9%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, no statistically significant differences were found. A post hoc analysis, which breaks the original randomization, found that women who had physiotherapy only reported less improvement than women who had surgery. The authors described the crossover rate as very high and noted that a substantial proportion of women did not respond to the questionnaire. Reoperation was reported by 4.6% of women. ^[9]

These reports compare a surgical procedure and a training program in women with stress incontinence. They do not say that one choice suits any particular person, and neither addresses other kinds of incontinence. ^[8][9]

Pregnancy and after birth

After childbirth, about one-third of women have urinary incontinence and up to one-tenth have fecal incontinence, according to the background in a Cochrane review. ^[10] That review, updated in 2020, included 46 trials with 10,832 women from 21 countries. Trials were small to moderate in size, programs and control conditions varied and were often poorly described, and many trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. ^[10]

For prevention in women who were continent, the review found that antenatal pelvic floor muscle training probably lowered the risk of reporting urinary incontinence in late pregnancy compared with usual care (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.72; six trials, 624 women; moderate quality). It slightly lowered the risk at three to six months after birth (risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.95; five trials, 673 women; high quality). For the late postnatal period, six to 12 months, there was too little information to draw a conclusion. ^[10]

For treatment, the picture was less clear. In women who already had incontinence during pregnancy, the review found no evidence that antenatal training reduced incontinence. In women with persistent incontinence after birth, there was no evidence of a difference in incontinence at six to 12 months postpartum (risk ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.07; three trials, 696 women; low quality). ^[10] Two participants in a study of 43 pregnant women withdrew because of pelvic floor pain, and no other trial reported adverse effects. ^[10]

Pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is common: a trial follow-up paper states that it affects around 40% of women over 50. ^[13]

An assessor-blinded trial at a university hospital and a physical therapy clinic randomized 109 women with stage I to III prolapse to pelvic floor muscle training (59 women) or control (50 women). Both groups received lifestyle advice and learned a technique called "the Knack." The training group also had individual physical therapy sessions and a home exercise program. Eleven women (19%) in the training group improved by one stage on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System, compared with four (8%) controls (P = .035). The training group also lifted the bladder by 3.0 mm more and the rectum by 5.5 mm more than controls and reported less frequent and less bothersome symptoms. The authors reported no adverse effects. ^[11]

A meta-analysis in 2016 pooled 13 randomized trials with 2,340 patients. Women who received training had a larger improvement in prolapse symptom score (mean difference -3.07) and prolapse stage (risk ratio 1.70). The training groups also had more muscle strength and endurance, but there was no significant difference in later need for further treatment. For training as an adjunct to prolapse surgery, the results were inconclusive because outcomes were measured differently across trials. ^[12]

An 11-year follow-up of a UK multicenter trial of individualized training (POPPY) used linked Scottish administrative health records for 293 women. Further prolapse treatment had been received by 43.6% of the training group and 52.8% of the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.99). Total costs for further treatment did not differ significantly. This is a record-linkage analysis of administrative records, so it describes treatments received and not the reasons for them. ^[13]

The International Urogynecology Consultation summarized the trial literature in 2022. It identified 11 treatment trials of training in the general female population and judged the evidence good that training reduces prolapse symptoms or improves stage by one stage in women with stage I to III prolapse. For training before and after prolapse surgery, nine of 10 trials found no evidence of benefit. Only three treatment studies compared training with a pessary. Long-term follow-up studies were few and inconsistent. The group found no primary prevention studies and sparse, inconsistent evidence for early intervention after birth. ^[14]

Chronic pelvic pain and tender pelvic floor muscles

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin in 2020 on chronic pelvic pain that is not completely explained by identifiable pathology in gynecologic, urologic or gastrointestinal organs. It notes that the complexity of care can be addressed by longer visits and by identifying multidisciplinary team members within the practice or through referral. ^[15]

Examination sometimes finds tenderness in the muscles themselves. A retrospective cross-sectional study of 987 women, aged 14 to 79, seen at a university-based chronic pelvic pain clinic between 1993 and 2000 found levator ani tenderness in 212 of 955 examined (22%) and piriformis tenderness in 128 of 943 (14%). Tenderness was associated with more pain sites, previous surgery for pelvic pain, higher depression and pain-inventory scores, and pain that worsened with bowel movements. ^[16] This was a referral clinic, so the numbers describe a selected group. An association with other findings does not show which came first, or that muscle tenderness caused the pain. ^[16]

A randomized trial in North America tested pelvic floor myofascial physical therapy against global therapeutic massage for women with interstitial cystitis or painful bladder syndrome and demonstrable pelvic floor tenderness on examination. The 81 women had no more than three years of symptoms and received 10 scheduled treatments at 11 centers. Using a seven-point global response scale, 59% in the myofascial group were moderately or markedly improved, versus 26% in the massage group (P = 0.0012). Ratings of pain, urgency and frequency and the symptom index fell in both groups, with no significant difference between them. Pain was the most common adverse event in both groups, and no serious adverse events were reported. ^[17] The population was narrow, a bladder pain condition with examination tenderness, so it should not be read as a result for all pelvic pain. ^[17]

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled nonpharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women. It included 38 randomized trials with 2,168 women (mean age 35.1 years). Multimodal physical therapy produced lower pain intensity than inert or nonconservative treatments in the short term (standardized mean difference -1.69, 95% confidence interval -2.54 to -0.85; high certainty) and the intermediate term (-1.82, 95% confidence interval -3.13 to -0.52; moderate certainty). Predominantly psychological approaches showed no difference in pain intensity (-0.18, moderate certainty) and a slight difference in sexual function. The evidence for acupuncture was too uncertain to support any statement, and single tissue-based therapies had a limited evidence base. ^[18] The wide confidence intervals around the physical therapy estimates mean the pooled results are imprecise. ^[18]

A smaller meta-analysis of seven clinical trials (279 participants) looked at pelvic floor physical therapy and mindfulness for chronic pelvic pain. It reported lower pain catastrophizing scores after treatment and during follow-up with mindfulness and pelvic floor physical therapy, and a difference in sexual function scores at follow-up. The authors noted the small number of studies that applied both approaches. ^[19] A 2025 meta-analysis of eight articles compared multidisciplinary treatment, defined as at least two disciplines, with single-discipline treatment in females aged 13 and over. Pain scores were lower with multidisciplinary care (mean difference -2.19) and sexual function improved more, but quality of life did not differ, and certainty ranged from moderate to very low. ^[20] These reviews group many different clinics and programs, so they cannot say which part of a program does the work. ^[19][20]

Provoked vulvar pain

Provoked vestibulodynia is described as recurrent pain at the entry of the vagina in response to pressure or attempted penetration, and it is the most common subtype of chronic vulvar pain. ^[24] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a 2016 committee opinion, states that optimal treatment remains unclear. It suggests considering an individualized, multidisciplinary approach that may involve physical therapists, sexual counselors, psychologists and pain specialists. It also notes that patients may take a multidisciplinary approach to mean that the practitioner does not believe the pain is real, so a detailed conversation about the diagnosis and realistic goals is the starting point. ^[21]

A 2017 systematic review found 43 studies of physical therapy modalities in provoked vestibulodynia, including seven randomized trials, 20 prospective studies, five retrospective studies, six case reports and six study protocols. Most had a high risk of bias, mainly because there was no comparison group. Other issues included small samples, non-validated outcomes and nonstandard interventions. Most studies reported less pain during intercourse and better sexual function, and the authors called for more rigorous randomized trials. ^[22]

Since then, trials have been added. A 2016 pilot randomized 20 women to cognitive behavioral therapy or comprehensive physical therapy. Seventy percent of the cognitive behavioral group and 80% of the physical therapy group had a clinically important reduction in intercourse pain (30% or more) after treatment. Nearly all improvements were maintained at six months. The physical therapy group improved earlier on some outcomes, and sexual functioning improved significantly only among those who completed cognitive behavioral therapy. ^[23] With only 20 participants, this is a pilot and cannot settle which approach is better. ^[23]

A larger multicenter trial randomized 212 women recruited from the community and four Canadian university hospitals. For 10 weeks, one group had weekly physical therapy, which combined education, pelvic floor exercises with biofeedback, manual therapy and dilation, and the other used 5% topical lidocaine ointment overnight. Outcome assessors, investigators and analysts were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was pain intensity during intercourse on a 0 to 10 scale. Physical therapy was more effective, with a mean group difference after treatment of 1.8 points (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.3), maintained at six months. In the physical therapy group, 79% reported being much or very much improved, compared with 39% in the lidocaine group. ^[24] The trial compared one multicomponent program with one topical treatment, so it does not isolate which part of physical therapy mattered. ^[24]

A 2024 meta-analysis of nine randomized trials (332 patients) of rehabilitative techniques for vulvodynia found an overall effect size of -1.43 on a visual analog pain scale (95% confidence interval -2.69 to -0.17). Significant effects appeared in subgroups for acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy. The authors wrote that physical agent modalities and complementary techniques appeared more effective than placebo, sham or waiting list, and called for more evidence. ^[25] The review grouped a wide range of techniques, and the wide confidence interval means the pooled estimate is imprecise. ^[25]

Endometriosis

The endometriosis trials cited here are small. One randomized trial enrolled 34 nulliparous women with deep infiltrating endometriosis and superficial dyspareunia. Women were assigned to five individual sessions of pelvic floor physiotherapy (17 women) or no intervention (17 women), and 30 women completed the study. The primary outcome was change in the area of the levator hiatus on transperineal ultrasound during a Valsalva maneuver at four months. It changed by 20.0% in the study group and by -0.5% in the control group (P = 0.02). Pain ratings for superficial dyspareunia fell by a median of three points in the study group and did not change in controls, and chronic pelvic pain also differed between groups. ^[26] The sample was small and the control group received no intervention. The findings apply to a specific subgroup of women with deep disease and superficial pain with penetration. ^[26]

A 2023 meta-analysis of six trials compared non-pharmacologic conservative therapies with placebo in women with endometriosis. Pain intensity was lower (standardized mean difference -0.89, 95% confidence interval -1.21 to -0.57), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 69%). For quality of life, only the physical function component differed. ^[27] A 2026 meta-analysis of seven studies reported lower pain after physiotherapy techniques than after non-physiotherapy comparators (mean difference -1.97, 95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.95). Electrotherapy and laser devices showed the largest reduction, and locally applied techniques reduced pain more than generally applied ones. ^[28] Both reviews combine different interventions, and the second drew on only eight eligible studies. Neither shows that pelvic floor physiotherapy specifically changes endometriosis lesions or disease course, and each measures reported pain. ^[27][28]

Constipation with dyssynergic defecation

Pelvic floor biofeedback has also been studied in bowel problems. In the trials below, dyssynergic defecation was identified by anorectal testing in people with chronic constipation. ^[29][30] One randomized trial enrolled 77 adults (69 women) with chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation and compared three months of biofeedback with sham feedback or standard therapy (diet, exercise, laxatives). Biofeedback participants were more likely to correct dyssynergia, had shorter balloon expulsion time and more complete spontaneous bowel movements, and reported higher global bowel satisfaction than sham. ^[29]

A later randomized trial compared office-based and home-based biofeedback in 100 adults with Rome III functional constipation and dyssynergic defecation, drawn from 300 screened at a tertiary care center. Office-based biofeedback was six therapist-guided sessions over three months. Home-based training was 20-minute self-training sessions twice a day with a probe. Responders numbered 34 of 50 (68%) at home and 35 of 50 (70%) in the office, and home-based therapy was non-inferior on several primary outcomes. Of those who started, 76% completed home training versus 90% in the office group. ^[30] Both trials enrolled people with constipation and dyssynergic defecation, so neither applies to constipation in general. ^[29][30]

Patterns across the research

Several themes recur when the studies are laid side by side.

First, the evidence is strongest where the intervention is narrow and the outcome is well defined. Training for stress urinary incontinence has high-certainty evidence for cure at the end of treatment compared with no treatment. ^[4] Where a program combines education, exercises, manual therapy and other elements, a trial cannot say which element contributed. ^[18][24]

Second, comparators differ. The 2018 Cochrane review used no treatment, placebo, sham or inactive controls. ^[4] The vulvar pain trial used a topical anesthetic. ^[24] The interstitial cystitis trial used a different type of massage. ^[17] The endometriosis ultrasound trial used no intervention. ^[26] Results against different comparators answer different questions.

Third, follow-up is short and long-term results are mixed. The incontinence review noted follow-up generally under 12 months. ^[4] The 11-year prolapse follow-up found lower odds of further prolapse treatment, but the 12-year incontinence follow-up found no significant difference in its intention-to-treat analysis, and the international prolapse review called long-term results inconsistent. ^[9][13][14]

Fourth, blinding is limited. The biofeedback review noted that none of its main outcomes were blinded. ^[7] The vulvar pain trial masked assessors, investigators and analysts, but it compared two quite different treatments. ^[24]

Fifth, the trials that reported harms found few. The prolapse trial of 109 women reported no adverse effects attributed to training. ^[11] The postnatal review noted pain-related withdrawals from one small study. ^[10] In the interstitial cystitis trial, pain was the most common adverse event, at similar rates in both groups. ^[17] One Cochrane review summarized adverse events narratively, so they are harder to compare across trials. ^[6]

Sixth, the amount of evidence differs by condition. Urinary incontinence has the largest trials. ^[4] One large vulvar pain trial compared physical therapy with an active comparator. ^[24] A meta-analysis for chronic pelvic pain reports high-certainty short-term benefit for multimodal physical therapy. ^[18] The endometriosis studies are smaller and combine different interventions. ^[26][27][28]

What this does not tell you

The studies described here cannot say whether pelvic floor physical therapy is appropriate for any individual. They also cannot say what a particular person's symptoms mean. Reported symptoms, clinical examination, imaging, surgery and pathology answer different questions. In the clinic study, muscle tenderness on examination was one finding among many, and its association with other features does not establish a cause. ^[16]

Most trials report group averages. An average improvement can coexist with individuals who did not improve, and the intervals around many estimates are wide. ^[4][18][25] Trials enrolled specific populations: middle-aged parous women with stress incontinence, women with stage I to III prolapse, women with bladder pain and examination tenderness, women recruited for vulvar pain, nulliparous women with deep endometriosis. Results in one of these groups cannot be assumed for another. ^{[6][17][24][26]}

The terms used in the research, such as "multimodal," "myofascial" and "biofeedback," cover different practices. Reviews often pool them. The reviews cited here describe the quality of evidence in their own terms, and several rate parts of it as low or very low certainty. ^[6][7][20]

The evidence on whether treatment changes the course of any condition over many years is limited. The 12-year and 11-year follow-ups are observational, one reached under half of the women and the other relied on administrative records, so neither can show cause. ^[9][13] The endometriosis reviews measured reported pain, and the ultrasound trial measured a muscle area and pain ratings, so none of them speaks to the disease itself. ^[26][27][28]

Nothing here is advice on diagnosis, treatment, dosing, frequency or choice of provider. Those decisions belong to a person and her care team.

References

1. Frawley H, Shelly B, Morin M, Bernard S, Bø K, Digesu GA, et al. An International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for pelvic floor muscle assessment. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(5):1217-1260. doi:10.1002/nau.24658. PMID 33844342. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844342/
2. Bo K, Frawley HC, Haylen BT, Abramov Y, Almeida FG, Berghmans B, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):191-213. doi:10.1007/s00192-016-3123-4. PMID 27921161. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27921161/
3. Bump RC, Hurt WG, Fantl JA, Wyman JF. Assessment of Kegel pelvic muscle exercise performance after brief verbal instruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(2):322-7; discussion 327-9. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(91)90085-6. PMID 1872333. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1872333/
4. Dumoulin C, Cacciari LP, Hay-Smith EJC. Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10(10):CD005654. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005654.pub4. PMID 30288727. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288727/
5. Hagen S, Elders A, Stratton S, Sergenson N, Bugge C, Dean S, et al. Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training with and without electromyographic biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;371:m3719. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3719. PMID 33055247. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33055247/
6. Hay-Smith EJC, Starzec-Proserpio M, Moller B, Aldabe D, Cacciari L, Pitangui ACR, et al. Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;12(12):CD009508. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009508.pub2. PMID 39704322. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39704322/
7. Fernandes ACN, Jorge CH, Weatherall M, Ribeiro IV, Wallace SA, Hay-Smith EJC. Pelvic floor muscle training with feedback or biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;3(3):CD009252. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009252.pub2. PMID 40066950. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40066950/
8. Labrie J, Berghmans BL, Fischer K, Milani AL, van der Wijk I, Smalbraak DJ, et al. Surgery versus physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1124-33. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1210627. PMID 24047061. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24047061/
9. van Oorschot HFC, Tijsseling D, Labrie J, van der Vaart CH. Twelve-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Versus Mid-Urethral Sling Surgery for Female Moderate to Severe Urinary Incontinence. BJOG. 2025;132(6):826-833. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.18092. PMID 39931871. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39931871/
10. Woodley SJ, Lawrenson P, Boyle R, Cody JD, Mørkved S, Kernohan A, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;5(5):CD007471. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007471.pub4. PMID 32378735. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32378735/
11. Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, Bø K. Can pelvic floor muscle training reverse pelvic organ prolapse and reduce prolapse symptoms? An assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):170.e1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.037. PMID 20435294. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20435294/
12. Li C, Gong Y, Wang B. The efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):981-92. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2846-y. PMID 26407564. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26407564/
13. Fenocchi L, Best C, Mason H, Elders A, Hagen S, Maxwell M. Long-term effects and costs of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse: trial follow-up record-linkage study. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(1):239-246. doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05272-9. PMID 35763050. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35763050/
14. Bø K, Anglès-Acedo S, Batra A, Brækken IH, Chan YL, Jorge CH, et al. International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(10):2633-2667. doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05324-0. PMID 35980443. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35980443/
15. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Chronic Pelvic Pain: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 218. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(3):e98-e109. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003716. PMID 32080051. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32080051/
16. Tu FF, As-Sanie S, Steege JF. Prevalence of pelvic musculoskeletal disorders in a female chronic pelvic pain clinic. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(3):185-9. PMID 16674013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16674013/
17. FitzGerald MP, Payne CK, Lukacz ES, Yang CC, Peters KM, Chai TC, et al. Randomized multicenter clinical trial of myofascial physical therapy in women with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome and pelvic floor tenderness. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2113-8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.123. PMID 22503015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22503015/
18. Starzec-Proserpio M, Frawley H, Bø K, Morin M. Effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2025;232(1):42-71. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.08.006. PMID 39142363. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39142363/
19. Bittelbrunn CC, de Fraga R, Martins C, Romano R, Massaneiro T, Mello GVP, et al. Pelvic floor physical therapy and mindfulness: approaches for chronic pelvic pain in women-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(3):663-672. doi:10.1007/s00404-022-06514-3. PMID 35384474. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35384474/
20. McReynolds D, Shiraz R, Tangey MA, Egerton T, Frawley H. Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Treatment Compared to Single Discipline Treatment of Female Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. BJOG. 2025;132(12):1716-1733. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.18322. PMID 40741923. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40741923/
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion No 673: Persistent Vulvar Pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):e78-e84. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001645. PMID 27548558. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27548558/
22. Morin M, Carroll MS, Bergeron S. Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Modalities in Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5(3):295-322. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.02.003. PMID 28363763. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28363763/
23. Goldfinger C, Pukall CF, Thibault-Gagnon S, McLean L, Chamberlain S. Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Physical Therapy for Provoked Vestibulodynia: A Randomized Pilot Study. J Sex Med. 2016;13(1):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.003. PMID 26755091. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26755091/
24. Morin M, Dumoulin C, Bergeron S, Mayrand MH, Khalifé S, Waddell G, et al. Multimodal physical therapy versus topical lidocaine for provoked vestibulodynia: a multicenter, randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):189.e1-189.e12. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.038. PMID 32818475. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32818475/
25. Calafiore D, Marotta N, Curci C, Agostini F, De Socio RI, Inzitari MT, et al. Efficacy of Rehabilitative Techniques on Pain Relief in Patients With Vulvodynia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther. 2024;104(7). doi:10.1093/ptj/pzae054. PMID 38564267. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38564267/
26. Del Forno S, Arena A, Pellizzone V, Lenzi J, Raimondo D, Cocchi L, et al. Assessment of levator hiatal area using 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis and superficial dyspareunia treated with pelvic floor muscle physiotherapy: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(5):726-732. doi:10.1002/uog.23590. PMID 33428320. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428320/
27. Abril-Coello R, Correyero-León M, Ceballos-Laita L, Jiménez-Barrio S. Benefits of physical therapy in improving quality of life and pain associated with endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023;162(1):233-243. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14645. PMID 36571475. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36571475/
28. Can G, das Virgens IPA, Fehér B, Orbán EP, Fehérvári P, Bánhidy F, et al. Physiotherapy for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med. 2026;27(1):95-103. doi:10.1093/pm/pnaf083. PMID 40705433. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40705433/
29. Rao SS, Seaton K, Miller M, Brown K, Nygaard I, Stumbo P, et al. Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback, sham feedback, and standard therapy for dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(3):331-8. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2006.12.023. PMID 17368232. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17368232/
30. Rao SSC, Valestin JA, Xiang X, Hamdy S, Bradley CS, Zimmerman MB. Home-based versus office-based biofeedback therapy for constipation with dyssynergic defecation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(11):768-777. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30266-8. PMID 30236904. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30236904/