2018
DOI: 10.1002/nau.23595
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Test‐retest reliability of the different dynamometric variables used to evaluate pelvic floor musculature during the menstrual cycle

Abstract: Time and contraction force parameters of the PFM are not influenced by hormonal alterations that occur during the menstrual cycle. The impulse of contraction was the only variable to demonstrate a significant difference between the first and second week of the data collection protocol. The baseline, maximum strength value, impulse of contraction, and average contraction force variables presented good to excellent reproducibility and can be safely used as a method of PFM evaluation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the 101 records included, 23 PFM dynamometers from 15 research groups were identified. PFM dynamometers were grouped into two categories: clinical PFM dynamometers ( n = 20, from 12 research groups), 7–26 meant for research settings, and personal PFM dynamometers ( n = 3, from three groups), which were commercially available and intended for patient use 27–29 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…From the 101 records included, 23 PFM dynamometers from 15 research groups were identified. PFM dynamometers were grouped into two categories: clinical PFM dynamometers ( n = 20, from 12 research groups), 7–26 meant for research settings, and personal PFM dynamometers ( n = 3, from three groups), which were commercially available and intended for patient use 27–29 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…‐SUI: Significant lower maximal rate‐of‐force development (rapidity to contract prior to a cough) (t‐test) 17 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations