RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire is a validated and reliable questionnaire that studies the presence and degree of pelvic floor discomfort, providing a global vision of pelvic floor dysfunction. This questionnaire assesses urinary stress incontinence, urinary urgency, urinary frequency, urge urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapses, dysuria, dyspareunia, defecatory dysfunction, fecal incontinence, and the disability it causes to the respondent. AIM: The aim of the present study was to analyze the structural characteristics and psychometric properties of the different versions of the pelvic floor bother questionnaire, as well as the methodological quality, the quality of evidence, and the criteria used for good measurement properties. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out in different databases, such as PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Dialnet, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL, on studies adapting and validating the pelvic floor bother questionnaire in other languages. The data were analyzed taking into account the guidelines of the preferred reporting item statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and following the COSMIN guidelines, considering articles published up to 28 February 2022, and registered in the PROSPERO database. RESULTS: Initially, a total of 443 studies were found, from which a total of four studies were analyzed with regard to structural characteristics and psychometric properties, such as reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: The different versions of the questionnaires show basic structural characteristics and psychometric properties for the evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunctions. Most of the analyzed versions present criteria for good measurement properties qualified as sufficient, inadequate-adequate methodological quality, and low-moderate quality of evidence.
RESUMO
(1) Objective: The purpose was to analyze the effectiveness of myofascial therapy on musculoskeletal pain and functionality of the upper extremities in female breast cancer survivors, and to evaluate the changes in range of motion, quality of life, and mood state of these patients. (2) Methods: Systematic searches were performed on the MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Databases for articles published until October 2020, in order to identify randomized controlled trials which analyzed the effectiveness of myofascial therapy as compared to a control group, passive treatment, placebo, or another intervention, and allowed co-interventions on female breast cancer survivors. Two reviewers examined the sources individually, calculated the risk of bias and extracted the data (PROSPERO number CRD42020215823). (3) Results: A total of eight RCTs were included. The results suggested that myofascial therapy does not have a greater statistically significant immediate effect on pain intensity (SMD: -0.15; 95% CI -0.48, 0.19), functionality (SMD: -0.17; 95% CI -0.43, 0.09) and range of motion in flexion (SMD: 0.30; 95% CI -0.13, 0.74) than an inactive, passive treatment or another intervention. However, a statistically significant result was observed for the abduction shoulder in favor of the experimental group (SMD: 0.46; 95% CI 0.05, 0.87; p = 0.03). (4) Conclusion: In general, although we found greater overall effects in support of the intervention with myofascial therapy than other control groups/types of interventions, the subgroup analysis revealed inconsistent results supporting myofascial therapy applied to breast cancer survivors.
