ReviewInternational journal of women's health2025
Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Urinary Incontinence in Women Athletes: Umbrella Review and Meta-analysis of Sport-Related Factors.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Pooled it
- Association of labor epidural analgesia with early postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women undergoing vaginal delivery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding the function of pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) is important to ensure comprehensive healthcare for women with urogenital and anorectal disorders. Objective: To systematically synthesize the measurement variables used in studies that objectively evaluate female PFMs. Methods: An integrative review was conducted on studies published in Portuguese, Spanish, and English between 2000 and 2020. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library. Results: A total of 54 studies were included. Of these, 13 (24.07%) used multiple instruments to analyze PFMs, and 22 (40.74%) combined manual assessment with other measurement methods. The Oxford Scale was the most frequently used tool (13 studies). Regarding the assessment instruments and variables used to measure PFMs, manometry was the most commonly employed (30 studies, 55.55%), analyzing four variables, with peak pressure being the most frequently assessed (27 studies). Electromyography (EMG) was performed in 21 studies (38.88%), with nine analysis variables and peak contraction being mostly measured (17 studies). Dynamometry was used in nine studies (16.66%) to assess eight variables, with maximal strength being mostly reported (eight studies). Ultrasonography was also used in nine studies (16.66%), with the levator hiatus area at rest being the most frequently evaluated (eight studies). Conclusion: There was no clear standardization of the measurement variables used, with considerable variability in assessment instruments, data collection protocols, and data analysis methods. Advancements in comprehensive healthcare for women with PFMs dysfunction may arise from the development of standardized protocols for data collection and analysis related to the most widely used and established instruments in academic and clinical settings.
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.