4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Interrater reliability and physical examination of the pubovisceral portion of the levator ani muscle, validity comparisons using MR imaging

Journal

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 50-54

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20181

Keywords

levator ani muscle; MRI; pubovisceral; pelvic floor

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD038665] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK051405-04] Funding Source: Medline
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD038665] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK051405] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Defects in the pubovisceral portion of the levator ani muscle are seen with MR imaging. This study aims to determine interrater reliability of physical examination in detecting these defects, and to validate findings from physical examination using comparisons with MR images. Methods: Two examiners palpated the pubovisceral muscles of 29 women to assess for defects in this muscle. Each examiner was blinded to the others findings. MR scans were acquired on a further 24 women after structured clinical examination by one examiner. These images were read to determine pubovisceral muscle defects, blinded to patient identifiers. Agreement between raters and between MR imaging and clinical examination were calculated. Results: The two examiners had positive agreement (presence of a defect) of 72.7% and negative agreement (absence of a defect) of 83.3%. The positive agreement between physical examination and MR imaging was 27.3% and the negative agreement 86.5%. Conclusion: The structured physical examination to detect defects in the pubovisceral portion of the levator ani muscle can be learned as shown by good interrater agreement. However, examination alone underestimates these defects compared with MR imaging.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available