ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023
Three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound assessment using the levator ani deficiency score in primiparas: A replication study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perineal Body Anatomy in Primiparas Assessed by Three-Dimensional Endovaginal and Endoanal Ultrasound: A Reliability Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Levator Ani Deficiency and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 1 Year Postpartum: A Prospective Nested Case-Control Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound assessment using the levator ani deficiency score in primiparas: A replication study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
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
Abstract
introductionIt is essential to assess the levator ani properly as part of clinical care in patients presenting with pelvic floor dysfunction. The levator ani deficiency scoring system is a previously published method to assess levator ani defects with three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound. The primary aim of this study was to determine the intra- and interrater reliability of the levator ani deficiency score in a cohort of non-instrumentally delivered primiparas. MATERIAL AND
methodsPrimiparas (n = 141) were examined at least 1 year after vaginal birth. Three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound volumes were acquired by a single examiner using two different automated ultrasound probes. The volumes were analyzed by two separate raters who were blinded to each other's assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for levator ani deficiency score and categorized into three levels (mild, moderate, severe). Kendall's tau-b was calculated for intra- and interrater comparisons.
resultsIntrarater comparisons of levator ani deficiency score and levator ani deficiency category were high (Kendall's tau-b ≥0.80 for Rater 1; >0.79 for Rater 2). Interrater comparisons of levator ani deficiency score and levator ani deficiency category were also high (Kendall's tau-b >0.9 for assessment 1 and >0.78 for assessment 2). Varying by rater, probe and assessment, 75.9%-80.1% of the study population had no/mild deficiency, 6.4%-9.2% had moderate deficiency, and 4.3%-6.4% had severe levator ani deficiency.
conclusionsThe levator ani deficiency scoring system is a feasible method to assess defects of the levator ani muscle and can be reproduced with high intra- and interrater correlations. Using the scoring system in clinical practice may facilitate concordant assessment between different examiners. However, the system should be used to support clinical findings and symptomatology and not as a screening tool, as the score is lacking the category of no levator ani deficiency.
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.