Perioperative pelvic floor physical therapy in endometriosis surgery: analysis workbook and code for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Greg Marchand, Adriana Palma, Mckenna Robinson, Daniela Gonzalez Herrera, Dakota Anderson, Sarah Mera, Brooklynn O'Connell BS, Michael Hibner
2026 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22865503 · W7213885583
review OA: green CC0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-01 ⓘ

This paper provides supplementary analysis materials for a meta-analysis of three randomized trials involving 156 women, demonstrating that perioperative pelvic floor physical therapy significantly reduces pain following endometriosis surgery.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-24 · read from full text ⓘ

This supplementary material provides the analysis workbook and Python code for a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating perioperative pelvic floor physical therapy in endometriosis surgery. The dataset includes extracted summary statistics from three randomized clinical trials involving 156 women, with results showing a primary mean difference of 1.20 points favoring therapy on a pain scale. The authors note that no individual participant data were obtained, relying solely on published trial estimates for their random effects analysis. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — specifically assessing the efficacy of pelvic floor physical therapy as an adjunct to surgical treatment.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Supplementary materials for the systematic review and meta-analysis Perioperative Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Endometriosis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Contents. Supplementary_Analysis_Workbook.xlsx — a formula-driven workbook. Every extracted value sits in a labeled input cell and every reported estimate is a live formula, so changing an input recalculates the review. Sheets cover the inputs and their provenance, the median-to-mean conversion, the primary mean-difference analysis, the secondary standardised analysis, and the sensitivity analyses. Supplementary_Analysis_Code.py — a self-contained Python 3.11 script that performs the same computations independently, written without a meta-analysis package so each step is visible. README.md — full documentation of both files. The workbook and the script were written separately and agree to the precision reported in the manuscript. Results these files reproduce. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird); 3 randomized clinical trials; 156 women randomized and 144 analyzed. Primary mean difference 1.20 points in favour of therapy (95% CI 0.46 to 1.93) on a 0 to 10 pain scale Q = 0.238 on 2 df, P = .89; I-squared 0%; tau-squared 0 Weights: Gabrielsen 52.2%, Muñoz-Gómez 41.7%, Del Forno 6.1% Secondary Hedges g -0.49 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.16) Leave-one-out -1.13 to -1.24; Del Forno change-score basis -1.04 (95% CI -1.61 to -0.46); Hartung-Knapp 95% CI -1.75 to -0.64 Data. All inputs are published summary statistics from the 3 included trials. No individual participant data were obtained or are contained here. Registration. PROSPERO CRD420261425140, registered 17 June 2026.
Full text 2,442 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Perioperative pelvic floor physical therapy in endometriosis surgery: analysis workbook and code for a systematic review and meta-analysis Authors/Creators - 1. Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, Arizona, USA - 2. Arizona Center for Chronic Pelvic Pain, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Description Supplementary materials for the systematic review and meta-analysis Perioperative Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Endometriosis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Contents. Supplementary_Analysis_Workbook.xlsx — a formula-driven workbook. Every extracted value sits in a labeled input cell and every reported estimate is a live formula, so changing an input recalculates the review. Sheets cover the inputs and their provenance, the median-to-mean conversion, the primary mean-difference analysis, the secondary standardised analysis, and the sensitivity analyses.Supplementary_Analysis_Code.py — a self-contained Python 3.11 script that performs the same computations independently, written without a meta-analysis package so each step is visible.README.md — full documentation of both files. The workbook and the script were written separately and agree to the precision reported in the manuscript. Results these files reproduce. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird); 3 randomized clinical trials; 156 women randomized and 144 analyzed. - Primary mean difference 1.20 points in favour of therapy (95% CI 0.46 to 1.93) on a 0 to 10 pain scale - Q = 0.238 on 2 df, P = .89; I-squared 0%; tau-squared 0 - Weights: Gabrielsen 52.2%, Muñoz-Gómez 41.7%, Del Forno 6.1% - Secondary Hedges g -0.49 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.16) - Leave-one-out -1.13 to -1.24; Del Forno change-score basis -1.04 (95% CI -1.61 to -0.46); Hartung-Knapp 95% CI -1.75 to -0.64 Data. All inputs are published summary statistics from the 3 included trials. No individual participant data were obtained or are contained here. Registration. PROSPERO CRD420261425140, registered 17 June 2026. Notes Files README.md Files (25.4 kB) | Name | Size | Download all | |---|---|---| | md5:4775252a9166986cba3f02544b63fe29 | 2.6 kB | Preview Download | | md5:003da6dd9958f5ad527d4e23efc2e33b | 4.1 kB | Download | | md5:9d92acb73a1707e251c0183677e8dc6a | 18.7 kB | Download | Additional details Related works - References - Journal article: 10.3390/jcm12093310 (DOI) - Journal article: 10.1002/uog.23590 (DOI) - Journal article: 10.1016/j.jphys.2025.09.012 (DOI)

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (3)

References (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-10-05T06:10:06.749997+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK