Description
Made available in DSpace on 2015-10-21T13:09:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2015-04-10. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2015-10-22T09:53:13Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 WOS000352833400001.pdf: 652279 bytes, checksum: b6fe16ecaddab021569d817c78426d2b (MD5)
Background: The aim of this study was to compare pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength using transvaginal digital palpation in healthy continent women in different age groups, and to compare the inter- and intra-rater reliability of examiners performing anterior and posterior vaginal assessments.Methods: We prospectively studied 150 healthy multiparous women. They were distributed into four different groups, according to age range: G1 (n = 37), 30-40 years-old; G2 (n = 39), 41-50 years-old; G3 (n = 39), 51-60 years-old; and G4 (n = 35), older than 60 years-old. PFM strength was evaluated using transvaginal digital palpation in the anterior and posterior areas, by 3 different examiners, and graded using a 5-point Amaro's scale.Results: There was no statistical difference among the different age ranges, for each grade of PFM strength. There was good intra-rater concordance between anterior and posterior PFM assessment, being 64.7%, 63.3%, and 66.7% for examiners A, B, and C, respectively. The intra-rater concordance level was good for each examiner. However, the inter-rater reliability for two examiners varied from moderate to good.Conclusions: Age has no effect on PFM strength profiles, in multiparous continent women. There is good concordance between anterior and posterior vaginal PFM strength assessments, but only moderate to good inter-rater reliability of the measurements between two examiners.
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu
Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Bioestatística, Instituto de Biociências de Botucatu