Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,132 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Injury, weakening, or prolapse of the pelvic muscles, surrounding connective tissues or ligaments (pelvic floor).
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Disorder, Pelvic Floor; Disorders, Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Floor Disorder; Pelvic Floor Diseases; Disease, Pelvic Floor; Diseases, Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Floor Disease.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Female Urogenital Diseases; Pregnancy Complications; Male Urogenital Diseases; Urogenital Diseases
Related concepts
- Prolapse
- Pelvic Floor
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,771 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Pelvic Floor Disorders” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 925 of them (52.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 925 records.
Reviews account for 434 records (24.5%) and meta-analyses for 46. Randomized controlled trials number 79 (4.5%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 1 |
| 2010-2019 | 873 |
| 2020 onward | 925 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 434 | 24.5% |
| Meta-analyses | 46 | 2.6% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 79 | 4.5% |
Method: PubMed query "Pelvic Floor Disorders"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in kidney, urology and women's health
Kidney, urinary and reproductive health research uses lab markers (such as creatinine), imaging, symptom scores and registry data on pregnancy and birth. Findings about pregnancy are especially sensitive to who was studied and when in pregnancy exposure occurred. Nothing on this page is advice about treatment, fertility or pregnancy; speak to a qualified clinician. Check the population, the outcome measured and whether the study accounted for other health differences between groups.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundCesarean birth rates continue to rise worldwide with recent (2016) reported rates of 24.
- Closing excerpt
- This information could be valuable in counselling women on mode of delivery.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (494 words)
BackgroundCesarean birth rates continue to rise worldwide with recent (2016) reported rates of 24.5% in Western Europe, 32% in North America, and 41% in South America. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the long-term risks and benefits of cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies. The primary maternal outcome was pelvic floor dysfunction, the primary baby outcome was asthma, and the primary subsequent pregnancy outcome was perinatal death.Methods and findingsMedline, Embase, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were systematically searched for published studies in human subjects (last search 25 May 2017), supplemented by manual searches. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large (more than 1,000 participants) prospective cohort studies with greater than or equal to one-year follow-up comparing outcomes of women delivering by cesarean delivery and by vaginal delivery. Two assessors screened 30,327 abstracts. Studies were graded for risk of bias by two assessors using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-Randomized Studies. Results were pooled in fixed effects meta-analyses or in random effects models when significant heterogeneity was present (I2 ≥ 40%). One RCT and 79 cohort studies (all from high income countries) were included, involving 29,928,274 participants. Compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with decreased risk of urinary incontinence, odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66; n = 58,900; 8 studies) and pelvic organ prolapse (OR 0.29, 0.17 to 0.51; n = 39,208; 2 studies). Children delivered by cesarean delivery had increased risk of asthma up to the age of 12 years (OR 1.21, 1.11 to 1.32; n = 887,960; 13 studies) and obesity up to the age of 5 years (OR 1.59, 1.33 to 1.90; n = 64,113; 6 studies). Pregnancy after cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of miscarriage (OR 1.17, 1.03 to 1.32; n = 151,412; 4 studies) and stillbirth (OR 1.27, 1.15 to 1.40; n = 703,562; 8 studies), but not perinatal mortality (OR 1.11, 0.89 to 1.39; n = 91,429; 2 studies). Pregnancy following cesarean delivery was associated with increased risk of placenta previa (OR 1.74, 1.62 to 1.87; n = 7,101,692; 10 studies), placenta accreta (OR 2.95, 1.32 to 6.60; n = 705,108; 3 studies), and placental abruption (OR 1.38, 1.27 to 1.49; n = 5,667,160; 6 studies). This is a comprehensive review adhering to a registered protocol, and guidelines for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology were followed, but it is based on predominantly observational data, and in some meta-analyses, between-study heterogeneity is high; therefore, causation cannot be inferred and the results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsWhen compared with vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery is associated with a reduced rate of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but this should be weighed against the association with increased risks for fertility, future pregnancy, and long-term childhood outcomes. This information could be valuable in counselling women on mode of delivery.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29360829 · DOI · PMC5779640
Pelvic floor dysfunction: prevalence and associated factors [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundPelvic floor dysfunction in women encompasses a wide range of clinical disorders: urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, fecal incontinence, and pelvic-perineal region pain syndrome.
- Closing excerpt
- Health personnel must take these factors into account to prevent the appearance of these dysfunctions.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (268 words)
BackgroundPelvic floor dysfunction in women encompasses a wide range of clinical disorders: urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, fecal incontinence, and pelvic-perineal region pain syndrome. A literature review did not identify any articles addressing the prevalence of all pelvic floor dysfunctions.ObjectiveDetermine the prevalence of the group of pelvic floor disorders and the factors associated with the development of these disorders in women.Material and methodsThis observational study was conducted with women during 2021 and 2022 in Spain. Sociodemographic and employment data, previous medical history and health status, lifestyle and habits, obstetric history, and health problems were collected through a self-developed questionnaire. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) was used to assess the presence and impact of pelvic floor disorders. Pearson's Chi-Square, Odds Ratio (OR) and adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsOne thousand four hundred forty-six women participated. Urinary incontinence occurred in 55.8% (807) of the women, fecal incontinence in 10.4% (150), symptomatic uterine prolapse in 14.0% (203), and 18.7% (271) reported pain in the pelvic area. The following were identified as factors that increase the probability of urinary incontinence: menopausal status. For fecal incontinence: having had instrumental births. Factors for pelvic organ prolapse: number of vaginal births, one, two or more. Factors for pelvic pain: the existence of fetal macrosomia.ConclusionsThe prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction in women is high. Various sociodemographic factors such as age, having a gastrointestinal disease, having had vaginal births, and instrumental vaginal births are associated with a greater probability of having pelvic floor dysfunction. Health personnel must take these factors into account to prevent the appearance of these dysfunctions.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37838661 · DOI · PMC10576367
An International Continence Society (ICS)/ International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) joint report on the terminology for the assessment and management of obstetric pelvic floor disorders [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- AimsThe terminology of obstetric pelvic floor disorders should be defined and reported as part of a wider clinically oriented consensus.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionA consensus-based Terminology Report for obstetric pelvic floor disorders has been produced to support clinical practice and research.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (226 words)
AimsThe terminology of obstetric pelvic floor disorders should be defined and reported as part of a wider clinically oriented consensus.MethodsThis Report combines the input of members of two International Organizations, the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). The process was supported by external referees. Appropriate clinical categories and a sub-classification were developed to give coding to definitions. An extensive process of 12 main rounds of internal and 2 rounds of external review was involved to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by consensus.ResultsA terminology report for obstetric pelvic floor disorders, encompassing 357 separate definitions, has been developed. It is clinically-based with the most common diagnoses defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it usable by different specialty groups and disciplines involved in the study and management of pregnancy, childbirth and female pelvic floor disorders. Clinical assessment, investigations, diagnosis, conservative and surgical treatments are major components. Illustrations have been included to supplement and clarify the text. Emerging concepts, in use in the literature and offering further research potential but requiring further validation, have been included as an Appendix. As with similar reports, interval (5-10 year) review is anticipated to maintain relevance of the document and ensure it remains as widely applicable as possible.ConclusionA consensus-based Terminology Report for obstetric pelvic floor disorders has been produced to support clinical practice and research.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36443462 · DOI · PMC9834366
Postpartum Anorectal and Pelvic Floor Disorders: Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Purpose of reviewPostpartum anorectal and pelvic floor disorders (PFD) are common, though under-recognized.
- Closing excerpt
- Early recognition, appropriate treatment, and preventative measures could mitigate these problems.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (144 words)
Purpose of reviewPostpartum anorectal and pelvic floor disorders (PFD) are common, though under-recognized. There is limited knowledge regarding their diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Here we provide a critical review of this topic and highlight knowledge gaps and treatment options for these problems.Recent findingsRecent advances include dynamic 3D and 4D ultrasound of the pelvic floor to reveal pathology, anal sphincter defects, and pelvic organ prolapse. Treatments for fecal incontinence include anal inserts, vaginal inserts, translumbosacral neuromodulation therapy (not yet studied postpartum), and increasing data for safety of sacral nerve stimulators in pregnancy. Exercise, pelvic floor muscle training, and use of special devices show mixed results. Postpartum anorectal and pelvic floor disorders include fecal and/or flatus incontinence, constipation, hemorrhoids, pelvic organ prolapse, and urinary incontinence. Many patients present years later, and most suffer in silence. Early recognition, appropriate treatment, and preventative measures could mitigate these problems.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40608234 · DOI · PMC12226706
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction [5]
- Research article 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 [6]
- Research article The Epidemiology of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Childbirth: An Update [7]
- Research article Pelvic Floor Dysfunction And Its Effect On Quality Of Sexual Life [8]
- Research article Physical activity and the pelvic floor [9]
- Research article Pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction in women [10]
References
- Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2018. PMID 29360829 · DOI · PMC5779640
- Peinado-Molina RA, Hernández-Martínez A, Martínez-Vázquez S, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Martínez-Galiano JM. Pelvic floor dysfunction: prevalence and associated factors. . 2023. PMID 37838661 · DOI · PMC10576367
- Doumouchtsis SK, de Tayrac R, Lee J, Daly O, Melendez-Munoz J, Lindo FM, et al.. An International Continence Society (ICS)/ International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) joint report on the terminology for the assessment and management of obstetric pelvic floor disorders. . 2023. PMID 36443462 · DOI · PMC9834366
- Sitaraman L, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Rao SS. Postpartum Anorectal and Pelvic Floor Disorders: Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention. . 2025. PMID 40608234 · DOI · PMC12226706
- D'Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M, Abranches-Monteiro L, Arnold E, Goldman H, et al.. The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019. PMID 30681183 · DOI
- 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. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017. PMID 27918122 · DOI
- Hallock JL, Handa VL. The Epidemiology of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Childbirth: An Update. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016. PMID 26880504 · DOI · PMC4757815
- Verbeek M, Hayward L. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction And Its Effect On Quality Of Sexual Life. Sex Med Rev. 2019. PMID 31351916 · DOI
- Nygaard IE, Shaw JM. Physical activity and the pelvic floor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID 26348380 · DOI · PMC4744534
- Wallace SL, Miller LD, Mishra K. Pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction in women. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019. PMID 31609735 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.