Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative assessment of pelvic floor strength using a perineometer and digital examination

Isherwood, P. J., Rane, A.·2000·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To determine whether digital assessment of pelvic floor contraction strength is as reliable as vaginal perineometry and to assess the practice of pelvic floor exercises by women. Design A blinded, two‐assessor protocol, prospectively testing a volunteer sample of women. Population Two hundred and sixty‐three women (from a total of 278), aged 16–75 years, attending a general gynaecological clinic with nonurinary symptoms. Methods Participants answered a questionnaire regarding urinary symptoms and practice of pelvic floor exercises. History and examination was carried out by the clinician, and pelvic floor strength scored digitally using the Oxford Scale. Pelvic floor strength was then assessed by the physiotherapist, using a PFX perineometer. The physiotherapist was blinded to the woman's history, examination findings and digital assessment score. Both the clinician and physiotherapist were blinded to the questionnaire responses. Main outcome measures Digital pelvic floor contraction assessment, according to the Oxford Scale, was compared with perineometric assessment as the gold standard – examined against the background of the questionnaire findings. Results Of 263 patients, 53 were nulliparous (20%), and 210 parous (80%). Only 49 women carried out regular pelvic floor exercises (19%), and all were parous and admitted to troublesome urinary symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence was reported by 28% of all women (38.1% of parous women and 10.5% of nulliparous women). For both methods, there was no difference in the range of results when parity was taken into account. Concordance studies showed good agreement between digital and perineometric assessment of pelvic floor strength. The kappa value of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.67–0.79) indicated substantial agreement between the two methods. Conclusion There is good agreement between digital assessment of pelvic floor contraction strength and vaginal perineometry. Assessment during gynaecological examination may help to identify women with fascial defects of the pelvic floor, as well as those at risk of genital prolapse or urinary symptoms.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb10404.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Isherwood, P. J., & Rane, A.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-08
Volume
107
Issue
8
Pages
1007-1011
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2116174756
Cited by
171
References
1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative assessment of pelvic floor strength using a perineometer and digital examination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb10404.x
The paper
Isherwood, P. J., & Rane, A. (2000). Comparative assessment of pelvic floor strength using a perineometer and digital examination. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb10404.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.