ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Reliability of the PERFECT scheme assessed by unidigital and bidigital vaginal palpation.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Vaginal Spheres and Pelvic Floor Exercises on Female Sexual Function in Women with Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial (Secondary Analysis).International urogynecology journal · 2026Trial
- A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Extracorporeal Vaginal Peflex Weights for Enhancing Pelvic Floor Function and Relieving Stress Urinary Incontinence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Trial
- Clinical Collaboration Commentary: Breaking Down the Role of Pelvic Health Physical Therapy in Colorectal Care.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Pelvic floor muscle function differs between postmenopausal women with and without stress urinary incontinence: An experimental parallel-controlled study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Pelvic Floor Health and Urinary Incontinence in Female Soccer Players: A Comparative Analysis Between Professionals and Physically Active Women: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Protocol.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Relationship Between the PERFECT Scheme, Vaginal Manometry, and Transperineal Ultrasound in Women With and Without Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Cross-Sectional Study.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Utility of Shear Wave Elastography Combined with Transperineal Pelvic Floor Ultrasound in Evaluating Pelvic Floor Function After Hysterectomy.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Acute Effect of a Half-Marathon over the Muscular Function and Electromyographic Activity of the Pelvic Floor in Female Runners with or without Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Sexual functioning is not, but psychological burden is predictive for receiving help in pelvic physical therapy practice: A cross-sectional study.Open research Europe · 2023Article
- Therapeutic effect of proprioception training combined with pelvic floor electrical stimulation biofeedback on postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022Article
- Is there agreement between the preference of examiner and women for unidigital and bidigital vaginal palpation? A qualitative study.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Advancing women's pelvic floor muscle function diagnosis: the EFSMAP examination and its reliability evaluation.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the PERFECT scheme assessed by uni- and bidigital vaginal palpation in young nulligravid women.
methodsForty healthy women [median age 22 (19-34) years] were evaluated by unidigital vaginal palpation by both Examiners A and C, while the other 40 participants [median age 23.5 (19-35) years] were assessed by Examiners B and C by bidigital vaginal palpation. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of all items of the PERFECT scheme were evaluated: P = power (Modified Oxford Scale); E = endurance; R = repetitions; F = fast contractions. Cohen's linear weighted kappa (κw) was used to assess the reliability of the power, while the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was applied for the other items. A priori sample size calculation found that 40 participants would be adequate.
resultsInter-rater reliability of unidigital palpation was considered fair for power (κw = 0.34) and poor for other items (ICC < 0.50); bidigital inter-rater reliability was considered moderate (power: κw = 0.57; endurance: ICC = 0.53; fast contractions: ICC = 0.65, respectively) and low (repetitions: ICC = 0.27). Intra-rater reliability was substantial for power (κw = 0.73 and 0.62), moderate for fast contractions (ICC = 0.63 and 0.51) and poor for repetitions (ICC < 0.50), respectively, for uni- and bidigital palpation. Endurance showed poor (ICC < 0.50) and moderate (ICC = 0.61) reliability for uni- and bidigital palpation.
conclusionsThe PERFECT scheme carried out by bidigital vaginal palpation presents higher reliability when two examiners carry out the physical examination. When one examiner is responsible for PFM assessment, both types of palpation are recommended for evaluation of power and fast contraction; endurance should be evaluated using bidigital palpation. Examiners should be careful during the assessment of repetition of sustained contractions because inter- and intra-reliabilities for both types of palpation were classified as poor.
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.