Reliability of pelvic floor muscle strength assessment in healthy continent women

Background: The aim of this study was to compare pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength using transvaginal digital palpation in healthy continent women in different age groups, and to compare the inter- and intra-rater reliability of examiners performing anterior and posterior vaginal assessments.Method...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Sartori, Dulcegleika Villas Boas [UNESP], Gameiro, Monica Orsi [UNESP], Yamamoto, Hamilto Akihissa [UNESP], Kawano, Paulo Roberto [UNESP], Guerra, Rodrigo [UNESP], Padovani, Carlos Roberto [UNESP], Amaro, João Luiz [UNESP]
Formato: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2015
País:Brasil
Recursos:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
Repositorio:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/128408
Acesso em linha:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/15/29
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/128408
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Gynecological examination
Parity
Pelvic floor
Urinary Incontinence
Reproducibility of results
Descrição
Resumo:Background: The aim of this study was to compare pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength using transvaginal digital palpation in healthy continent women in different age groups, and to compare the inter- and intra-rater reliability of examiners performing anterior and posterior vaginal assessments.Methods: We prospectively studied 150 healthy multiparous women. They were distributed into four different groups, according to age range: G1 (n = 37), 30-40 years-old; G2 (n = 39), 41-50 years-old; G3 (n = 39), 51-60 years-old; and G4 (n = 35), older than 60 years-old. PFM strength was evaluated using transvaginal digital palpation in the anterior and posterior areas, by 3 different examiners, and graded using a 5-point Amaro's scale.Results: There was no statistical difference among the different age ranges, for each grade of PFM strength. There was good intra-rater concordance between anterior and posterior PFM assessment, being 64.7%, 63.3%, and 66.7% for examiners A, B, and C, respectively. The intra-rater concordance level was good for each examiner. However, the inter-rater reliability for two examiners varied from moderate to good.Conclusions: Age has no effect on PFM strength profiles, in multiparous continent women. There is good concordance between anterior and posterior vaginal PFM strength assessments, but only moderate to good inter-rater reliability of the measurements between two examiners.