ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Is there agreement between the preference of examiner and women for unidigital and bidigital vaginal palpation? A qualitative study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe International Continence Society recommends vaginal palpation as a method for assessing pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function. Our aim was to analyze the agreement between preferences of examiner and participants according to unidigital and bidigital vaginal palpation during PFM assessment. The second aim was to investigate qualitatively women's perception of vaginal palpation.
methodsMaximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) were requested during both types of vaginal palpation and were classified by the Modified Oxford Scale (MOS). Examiner and participants answered if they had preferences regarding vaginal palpation. Women answered qualitatively what they felt during the assessment. Cohen's linear kappa (κ) evaluated the agreement after allocation of the women with a weaker and stronger MVC and qualitative analysis was performed by transcription considering age range (18-35; 36-59; ≥60 years).
resultsAgreement was almost zero for women with weaker and stronger MVC at unidigital (κ = 0.06 and κ = -0.12) and bidigital vaginal palpation (κ = 0.008 and κ = 0.005). Participants associated bidigital palpation with more perception and an easier way of contracting the PFMs. Women between 36 and 59 years associated unidigital palpation with a harder but comfortable way of contracting the PFMs. Subjects aged ≥60 years associated bidigital palpation with an uncomfortable, harder way of contracting PFM, with less space into the vagina.
conclusionsAgreement between preferences was almost zero neither between women with a weaker and stronger PFM contraction, nor between the types of vaginal palpation. Bidigital palpation increased women's perception, made the contraction easier, and was associated with less space in the vaginal canal and less comfort.
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.