ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
Reliability of Digital Palpation to Perineometeric Scoring for Assessment of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength: A Comparative Study.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in Women's Health Research.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the level of agreement between digital palpation and perineometeric scoring in measuring the strength of PFM. The objective was to ascertain the worth of digital assessment, enabling healthcare professionals to utilize it as a convenient screening and evaluation tool without the requirement of acquiring specialized equipment. Materials and Methods: This study included 435 Indian women between the ages of 18 and 55 years. The researchers evaluated PFMS using digital palpation and perineometeric scoring. Urogenital surgery, incontinence, and a history of pelvic organ prolapse were excluded. The data analysis encompassed demographic variables, the kappa coefficient, Pearson's correlation, and regression analysis. Results: The average age was 30 years, and the average body mass index was 23.95. The majority of individuals were nulliparous. The assessment of PFMS was conducted satisfactorily, demonstrating a significant level of agreement (κ = 0.63) between digital palpation and perineometeric scoring. The regression analysis provided confirmation of the reliability, with an Conclusion: It is essential to have dependable techniques to evaluate PFMS in Indian women. The outcomes highlight the need of using standardized evaluation methods and taking demographic factors into account. The low engagement of women, particularly prior to childbirth, in PFM activities highlights the importance of promoting knowledge and understanding. This study enhances the management of pelvic floor dysfunction and underscores the significance of accurate assessment for optimal treatment planning.
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.