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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Pelvic Floor Muscle Assessment: The PERFECT Scheme
Laycock, J., & Jerwood, D. (2001) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/s0031-9406(05)61108-x · Cited by 624
Da Roza, T., Mascarenhas, T., Araujo, M., Trindade, V., & Jorge, R. N. (2013) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2012.05.014 · Cited by 67
Fishing for (in)continence: long-term follow-up of women with OASIS–still a taboo
Schütze, S., Hohlfeld, B., Friedl, T. W. P., Otto, S., Kraft, K., Hancke, K., Hüner, B., Janni, W., & Deniz, M. (2021) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05878-8 · Cited by 25
Pelvic floor muscle weakness: a risk factor for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence
Schachar, J. S., Devakumar, H., Martin, L., Farag, S., Hurtado, E. A., & Davila, G. W. (2018) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3626-2 · Cited by 9
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.