4.4 Article

Reliability and validity of pelvic floor muscle strength assessment using the MizCure perineometer

Journal

BMC WOMENS HEALTH
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-01127-x

Keywords

MizCure; Vaginal pressure; Reliability; Validity; Pelvic floor muscles; Perineometer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The purpose of this study was to clarify the reliability and validity of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength assessment using the MizCure perineometer in healthy women. Methods Twenty healthy women (age 20-45 years) participated in this study. The vaginal pressure measured using the MizCure and validated Peritron perineometers were repeated during PFM contraction in the supine and standing positions. All women were evaluated twice by examiners 1 and 2. Following the measurements in the first session (Test 1), they were repeated after an interval of between 2 and 6 weeks (Test 2). Within- and between-session intra- and inter-rater reliabilities in vaginal pressure were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (1, 1) and (2, 1), respectively. Validity was assessed by Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient and Spearman's rank correlation analysis. Results Within-session intra-rater reliabilities for both examiners 1 and 2 for all vaginal pressures in Tests 1 and 2 were 0.90-0.96 for both perineometers. Between-session intra-rater reliability for the MizCure was 0.72-0.79 for both positions for examiner 1, and 0.63 in the supine position and 0.80 in the standing position for examiner 2. Inter-rater reliability for Test 1 was 0.91 in the supine position and 0.87 in the standing position for the MizCure. The vaginal pressures using the MizCure and Peritron were significantly associated with the supine position (r = 0.68, P < .001) and the standing position (r(s) = 0.82, P < .001). Conclusion MizCure perineometer is a validated tool to measure PFM strength in both supine and standing positions in healthy nulliparous women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available