Observational studyBMC women's health2026
Pelvic floor myoelectric excitation and force output across menstrual-cycle phases.
Observational study in BMC women's health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether menstrual-cycle (MC) phase is associated with changes in pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, focusing on myoelectric excitation (intravaginal sEMG) at rest and during standardized contraction tasks, and on mechanical strength assessed by dynamometry and digital palpation.
methodsProspective observational, within-subject study in 23 healthy nulliparous eumenorrheic women (18–35 years) not using hormonal contraceptives. Each participant was assessed in early follicular (EFP), ovulatory (OP), and mid-luteal (MLP) phases, confirmed using urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) testing, basal temperature, and transvaginal ultrasonography. Outcomes included Modified Oxford Scale (MOS), Pelvibex® dynamometry (passive, active, net force), and intravaginal sEMG (MVC plus Glazer protocol: baseline, phasic, tonic, endurance, baseline post-endurance). Friedman tests with Holm-adjusted post hoc comparisons and Spearman correlations were applied.
resultsVoluntary contraction sEMG (MVC, phasic, tonic, endurance) showed no significant phase differences (p > 0.05). Resting sEMG differed by phase: baseline average and peak amplitude was lower in OP vs. EFP (pHolm = 0.012; pHolm = 0.018, respectively). Strength outcomes (MOS and dynamometric measures) did not differ across phases (all p > 0.05). sEMG exhibited strong within-phase coherence and cross-phase stability, while baseline myoelectric excitation correlated inversely with force measures.
conclusionsMC phase was associated with subtle modulation of baseline PFM myoelectric excitation (most consistently lower at ovulation), without detectable phase-related changes during voluntary contractions or in mechanical strength. Baseline sEMG amplitude showed inverse associations with active force, suggesting that higher residual excitation may be associated with reduced mechanical strength. Overall, electrophysiological and force-based outcomes should be interpreted cautiously.
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.