Cited by 246Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchSexual function and dysfunction studies

An International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for pelvic floor muscle assessment

Open access
Frawley, Helena, Shelly, Beth, Morin, Melanie, Bernard, Stéphanie, Bø, Kari, Digesu, Giuseppe Alessandro, Dickinson, Tamara, Goonewardene, Sanchia +6 more·2021·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Introduction: The terminology for female and male pelvic floor muscle (PFM) assessment has expanded considerably since the first PFM function and dysfunction standardization of terminology document in 2005. New terms have entered assessment reports, and new investigations to measure PFM function and dysfunction have been developed. An update of this terminology was required to comprehensively document the terms and their definitions, and to describe the assessment method and interpretation of the finding, to standardize assessment procedures and aid diagnostic decision making. Methods: This report combines the input of members of the Standardisation Committee of the International Continence Society (ICS) Working Group 16, with contributions from recognized experts in the field and external referees. A logical, sequential, clinically directed assessment framework was created against which the assessment process was mapped. Within categories and subclassifications, each term was assigned a numeric coding. A transparent process of 12 rounds of full working group and external review was undertaken to exhaustively examine each definition, plus additional extensive internal development, with decision making by collective opinion (consensus). Results: A Terminology Report for the symptoms, signs, investigations, and diagnoses associated with PFM function and dysfunction, encompassing 185 separate definitions/descriptors, has been developed. It is clinically based with the most common assessment processes defined. Clarity and user‐friendliness have been key aims to make it interpretable by clinicians and researchers of different disciplines. Conclusion: A consensus‐based Terminology Report for assessment of PFM function and dysfunction has been produced to aid clinical practice and be a stimulus for research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.24658

Cites

204 of 204 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The methods, definitions, and units of this paper conform to the standards jointly recommended by the International Urogynecological Association and the International Continence Society (ICS), except where specifically noted.

    “Methods, definitions, and units conform to the standards jointly recommended by the International Urogynecological Association and the ICS except where specifically noted [34–36].”

    From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Abstract describes this ICS report as a standardised source of pelvic floor muscle assessment definitions, and the intra-anal manometry section specifies measurement units. But the Abstract says it is not a clinical protocol or guideline for performing assessments; the report does not establish that the citing paper’s methods conform to jointly recommended IUGA–ICS standards. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 206 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. FDA. Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. In. Vol 74: Federal Register; 2009:65132-65133.
  2. Shelly B, Dunbar A. Palpation and assessment of the pelvic floor muscles using depth and positional measurements. Journal of the Section on Women's Health. 2004;28(1):19-23.
  3. IASP. IASP Terminology, in Part III: Pain Terms, A Current List with Definitions and Notes on Usage, Classification of Chronic Pain. In: 2nd edition 1994, 2nd update 2012 ed. https://www.iasp- pain.org/Education/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1698&navItemNumber=5762011. Accessed 24Jan2020.
  4. Van Kampen M, De Weerdt W, Feys H, Honing S. Reliability and validity of a digital test for pelvic muscles strength in women. Neurourol and Urodynam 1996;15:338-336.
  5. Caufriez M. Postpartum. Rééducation urodynamique. Approche globale et technique analytique. In: Book chapter:2. Vol Tome 3. Brussels, Belgium: Collection Maïte; 1993:36- 44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frawley, H., Shelly, B., Morin, M., Bernard, S., Bø, K., Digesu, G. A., Dickinson, T., Goonewardene, S., McClurg, D., Rahnama'i, M. S., Schizas, A., Slieker‐ten Hove, M., Takahashi, S., & Voelkl Guevara, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Saint Ambrose University (US)
  • School of Rehabilitation Faculty of Medecine and Health Sciences University of Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Québec Canada
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
  • Uniklinik RWTH University Hospital of Aachen Aachen Germany
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • Department Gynaecology University of Erasmus Rotterdam The Netherlands
  • Nihon University (JP)
  • Urology Department University Hospital Fundación Sante Fé de Bogotá Bogotá Colombia
Corresponding author
Frawley, Helena
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-12
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1217-1260
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W3126701521
Cited by
246
References
206
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 7
FWCI
28.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
terminology standardization, pelvic floor dysfunction, pelvic floor function, continence, diagnostic classification, evaluation framework, consensus definition, International Continence Society
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Societies, Medical, Urology, Pelvic Floor, Consensus, Pelvic Floor Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review