ArticleJournal of ultrasound2026
Changes in abdominal muscles' thickness from rest to pelvic floor isolated contraction in healthy women.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare muscle thickness of rectus abdominis, internal oblique, external oblique, and transversus abdominis between rest and PFM isolated contraction.
designCross-sectional reliability study.
methodsMuscle thickness from rectus abdominis, internal oblique, external oblique and transversus abdominis was obtained from 27 physically active women (age: 26.41 ± 0.77 years) with ultrasound imaging at rest and during three maximum PFM contractions. Two independent analyzers, blinded to the conditions, analyzed 3 images from each muscle and condition using Image-J 1.42q software. Muscle thickness was measured three times on each image. Differences between conditions (rest and PFM contraction) were analyzed with a Student t-test. To verify the outcome measures' inter-analyzer reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of the measurement (SEM), and minimum detectable change (MDC) were calculated.
resultsTrA showed a significant increase in muscle thickness from rest compared to PFM isolated contraction (p < 0.001; t:-4.137). However, muscle thickness was similar for the two conditions in rectus abdominis (p = 0.093; t:1.746), internal oblique (p = 0.410; t:0.838), and external oblique (p = 0.847; t:0.196). Excellent reliability was found for muscle thickness at rest (r = 0.828-1.000; p < 0.001) and during PFM contraction (r = 0.997-1.000; p = 0.001) for rectus abdominis, internal oblique, external oblique and transversus abdominis muscles. SEM and MDC values from all outcomes were low.
conclusionPFM isolated contraction generates a significant contraction of the transversus abdominis muscle, which helps controlling intra-abdominal pressure. The excellent inter-analyzer reliability evidence that abdominal muscles' muscle thickness is reliable when obtained by different analyzers.
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.