ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Ultrasound Assessment of the Abdominal Wall Muscles in Women with and without Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endurance and electromyographic assessment of abdominopelvic motor control in women with primary dysmenorrhea: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Associations between soft drinks intake and primary dysmenorrhea among Chinese undergraduate female students.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Abdominal Musculature Thickness, Pelvic Tilt, and Trunk Mobility in Women with Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Relationship between Abdominal Diastasis and Lumbar Pain Pressure Threshold in Women Who Have Given Birth between the Ages of 30 and 45 Years-An Observational Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- Technical aspects of inter-recti distance measurement with ultrasonographic imaging for physiotherapy purposes: the scoping review.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- Article
- Ultrasonography Comparison of Pelvic Floor and Abdominal Wall Muscles in Women with and without Dyspareunia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Urinary incontinence, core morphology and their impact on balance and fatigue in multiple sclerosis: an observational study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary dysmenorrhea (PD) is one of the most common gynecological disorders in women of reproductive age that may affect quality of life. It is believed that the underlying cause of PD may be the excessive production of prostaglandins (PGs), however, between 20%-25% of women with PD did not respond to pharmacological treatments, showing that nociceptive mechanisms underlying PD are still not understood. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare, through the use of ultrasound imaging, the thickness at rest of the abdominal wall, as well as the interrecti distance (IRD), in women with and without PD.
methodsA cross-sectional study has been performed using ultrasound imaging (USI) to measure the resting thickness of the external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), transversus abdominis (TrAb), rectus abdominis (RA), as well as the IRD in a sample of 39 women, 19 with PD and 20 without PD (median ± IR age: 20 ± 4 and 22.5 ± 7 years, respectively).
resultsFindings of muscular thickness did not reveal statically significant differences (
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the thickness of the abdominal wall is not associated with PD.
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.