Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40757267›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of women's health2025

Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.

Laís Bertoldo Frazão, Leticia Assis Couto, Ana Carolina Atanes Mendes Peres, Amélia Pasqual Marques, Anice de Campos Pássaro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laís Bertoldo FrazãoPhysical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0006-3514-7792
Leticia Assis CoutoPhysical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Atanes Mendes PeresPhysical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Amélia Pasqual Marques *Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Anice de Campos Pássaro *Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy Department, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9345-3284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

dynamometryelectromyographymanometrypelvic floor musclesultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40757267
PMCPMC12318524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.