4.4 Article

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

期刊

BMC WOMENS HEALTH
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据