ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2025
The impact of pelvic floor contraction on urethral mobility and urogenital hiatus size in pelvic floor ultrasound.
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of pelvic floor contraction on urethral mobility and the size of the urogenital hiatus, as well as to compare two ultrasonographic approaches for the assessment of urethral mobility: transperineal with a transabdominal probe and transvestibular with a transvaginal transducer. Materials and methods: Modified Oxford Scale (MOS) was used for clinical evaluation of muscle contraction. The parameters obtained in both ultrasound approaches were assessed for all six Oxford grades. The values of ΔH, ΔD and vector, measured at rest and on pelvic floor muscle contraction, were used to evaluate urethral mobility parameters in both ultrasound methods. Patients with a history of urogynecological surgery, pelvic radiotherapy, significant pelvic prolapse (grade 2 or grater in at least one compartment), as well as those with unilateral or bilateral complete avulsion of the puborectalis muscle were excluded. Results: A total of 272 women were included in the analysis. A statistically significant correlation was found between the contraction force and urethral mobility parameters ΔH and vector-positive and ΔD-negative, obtained in both ultrasound approaches. However, no correlation was demonstrated between the contraction force and changes in the analyzed hiatal parameters. The Bland-Altman analysis showed a high agreement of both measurement methods. Conclusions: The force of pelvic floor muscle contraction, as measured with the Oxford Scale, correlated with urethral mobility in both ultrasound examinations. Assessment of urethral mobility using the three assessed parameters (ΔH, ΔD, vector) allows for the most comprehensive analysis. Only minor differences were found in the analyzed urethral mobility parameters between both ultrasonographic approaches. The impact of pelvic floor muscle contraction on the size of the urogenital hiatus was not confirmed.
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.