ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Clinical evaluation of a high-fidelity wireless intravaginal pressure sensor.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement and Interpretation of Intra-Abdominal Pressure During Physical Activity: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Is Physical Activity Good or Bad for the Female Pelvic Floor? A Narrative Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
- The Relationship Between Intra-Abdominal Pressure and Body Acceleration During Exercise.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisA wireless intravaginal pressure sensor (IVPS) has been developed to quantify abdominal pressure (P(abd)) changes during exercise and activities of daily living to guide post-operative advice given to women. In this pilot study, we aimed to compare IVPS performance, comfort, retention, and acceptability to a standard fluid-filled intrarectal pressure catheter currently used to measure P(abd) during routine urodynamics.
methodsA Life-Tech 3-mm urodynamic intrarectal catheter and IVPS were inserted concurrently in volunteers attending a urodynamics clinic. The IVPS was positioned above the levator plate and the intrarectal catheter positioned in routine fashion well above the anal sphincter. Routine urodynamics was undertaken, with women asked to perform star jumps if coughing or Valsalva did not invoke leakage. Subjects rated device comfort using a visual analogue scale (0-10). Repeated measures Bland-Altman analysis determined level of agreement (LOA) between the two devices for peak pressures for each activity.
resultsTwenty-seven women were recruited, 67% of the participants preferred the IVPS, 18% the intrarectal catheter, while 15% had no preference. Mean comfort score was 0.9 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 2.6 (p = 0.049) for the IVPS and intrarectal catheter respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated minimal bias for cough and Valsalva, however LOA were wide. Differences were more prominent during star jumps where rapid dynamic pressure changes occurred.
conclusionsThe IVPS had a higher comfort score and was well retained. The LOA between the two systems was moderate, but the high sampling rate and lower susceptibility to motion artefacts of the IVPS may provide more accurate information that will be important clinically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25224148What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.