ArticleBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2017
Relationship between aerobic capacity and pelvic floor muscles function: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic floor disorders among amateur runners.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Squeeze the beat: Enhancing cardiac vagal activity during resonance breathing via coherent pelvic floor recruitment.Psychophysiology · 2022Article
- The Association Between Pelvic Floor Muscle Force and General Strength and Fitness in Postpartum Women.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Is Physical Activity Good or Bad for the Female Pelvic Floor? A Narrative Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between aerobic capacity and pelvic floor muscles (PFM) function in adult women. Women aged 18 or over and without urinary dysfunction or other chronic diseases were eligible to participate. They completed the habitual physical activity (HPA) questionnaire, underwent a PFM functional evaluation by palpation and perineometry, and performed a submaximal (between 75 and 85% of maximum heart rate) cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) test to determine the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT). Forty-one women were included (35±16 years, 75% physically active, 17% very active, and 8% sedentary and 17% presented grade 1 PFM contraction, 31.8% grade 2, 26.8% grade 3, and 24.4% grade 4, according to the modified Oxford Scale). The average PFM contraction pressure obtained by perineometer was 53±26 cmH2O and the average oxygen consumption at VAT (VO2VAT) obtained from CPX was 14±2 mL·kg-1·min-1. Significant correlations were found between PFM contraction pressure and VO2VAT (r=0.55; P<0.001); between PFM contraction pressure and HPA score (r=0.38; P=0.02); between age and VO2VAT (r=-0.25; P=0.049); and between VO2VAT and HPA score (r=0.36; P=0.02). An age-adjusted multiple linear regression equation (R2=0.32) was derived to estimate VO2VAT from the contraction value obtained by perineometer, so that the PFM contraction pressure was able to predict VO2VAT. The equation was validated using data from another group of 20 healthy women (33±12 years; PFM contraction: 49±23 cmH2O) and no significant difference was found between actual VO2VAT and predicted VO2VAT (13.1±1.9 vs 13.8±2.0 mL·kg-1·min-1). In conclusion, PFM function is associated with aerobic capacity in healthy women and PFM contraction pressure may be used to estimate VO2VAT in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.