ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Pelvic floor muscle function in the standing position in women with pelvic floor dysfunction.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Most of the pelvic floor muscle functions in women differ in different body positions, yet others remain similar: systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Which Positions Optimize Pelvic Floor Activation in Female Athletes?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nomogram for predicting postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction based on ultrasound and serum biomarkers FGF2 and HBP.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Novel Method of Measuring Pelvic Floor Muscle Motion May Improve Accessibility of Pelvic Floor Muscle Coordination Training.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Ultrasound Assessment and Self-Perception of Pelvic Floor Muscle Function in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence in Different Positions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Point of care ultrasound in pelvic health: scope of practice, education and governance for physiotherapists.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisClinical assessment of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) in a standing position may provide a more valid representation of PFM function experienced by patients in daily life than assessment in the lying position. The primary aim of this study was to examine PFM function in a standing versus a lying position in parous women with any type of urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsIn this exploratory cross-sectional study, participant symptom status was determined using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed in standing and lying positions with a randomised order of testing. The primary outcome measure was vaginal squeeze pressure (VSP) using intra-vaginal manometry. Secondary outcomes included vaginal resting pressure, total PFM work and digital muscle testing. The difference between PFM function in a standing position compared with a lying position was analysed using paired t test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test.
resultsVaginal squeeze pressure assessed with manometry was higher in a standing than in a lying position (p = 0.001): standing (mean [SD]) 24.90 [12.67], lying 21.15 [14.65]. In contrast, PFM strength on digital muscle testing was lower in a standing position than in a lying position.
conclusionsThis study has demonstrated that PFM function in a standing position is different from that in a lying position in women with pelvic floor dysfunction. Whether the higher VSP observed in a standing position reflects a true difference in strength between positions, or a higher pressure reading due to incorrect PFM contraction technique in a standing position is uncertain. Further research with larger cohorts and a measurement tool that can accurately distinguish a rise in intra-vaginal pressure from PFM contraction rather than increasing intra-abdominal pressure is required to confirm this difference, and the clinical significance of any difference.
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.