ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Peritron manometer. DESIGN: All participants were evaluated twice, first by one examiner and 30 days later by a second examiner. Measurements of vaginal squeeze pressure were compared with the results from the palpation test. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen women with a mean age of 23.7 years (range 21 to 28 years). RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for vaginal palpation was fair (κ=0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.57). Using the Peritron manometer, the difference between examiners was less than 10cmH(2)O in 11 of the 19 (58%) cases. The palpation test did not differentiate between weak, moderate, good and strong muscle contractions. This study found fair inter-rater reliability for the modified Oxford Grading Scale and moderate inter-rater reliability for the Peritron manometer. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-rater reliability of vaginal squeeze pressure measurement using the Peritron manometer is acceptable and can be used in re-evaluations performed by different examiners in clinical practice. However, for research purposes, the ideal situation would be for a single examiner to assess and re-assess the subject. Vaginal palpation is important in the clinical assessment of correctness of a pelvic floor muscle contraction, but this study does not support the use of the modified Oxford Grading Scale as a reliable and valid method to measure and differentiate pelvic floor muscle strength.
Subject(s)
Exercise Therapy/instrumentation , Manometry , Pelvic Floor/physiology , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/rehabilitation , Vagina/physiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Manometry/instrumentation , Manometry/standards , Manometry/statistics & numerical data , Observer Variation , Palpation , Physical Therapy Modalities , Pressure , Reference Values , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/physiopathology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results obtained in the evaluation of intra-vaginal pressure using three different brands of perineometers in nulliparous volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty nulliparous women with no anatomical alterations and/or dysfunction of the pelvic floor were enrolled in our study. All the women had the ability to voluntarily contract their PFM (Pelvic Floor Muscles), as assessed by digital palpation. The intra-vaginal pressure was assessed using three different brands of perineometer (Neurodyn Evolution, SensuPower and Peritron). Each volunteer was evaluated on three alternate days by a single examiner using a single brand of perineometer on each day. In the assessment, the volunteers were required to pull (contract) their PFM in and up as strongly as possible 3 times and to sustain the contraction for 5 seconds, with an interval of 30 seconds between each pull. For the statistical analysis, a concordance correlation coefficient was used to compare the values that were obtained with each brand of perineometer. RESULTS: A moderate concordance (0.51) was found between the results from the Peritron and Neurodyn perineometers, a fair concordance (0.21) between the Peritron and SensuPower brands and a poor concordance (0.19) between the Neurodyn and SensuPower brands. CONCLUSION: The concordance of the measurements of the intra-vaginal pressure ranged from poor to moderate, suggesting that perineometers of different brands generate different results.
Subject(s)
Manometry/instrumentation , Muscle Contraction , Pelvic Floor/physiology , Pressure , Vagina/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Manometry/standards , Parity , Physical Examination/methods , Pregnancy , Reproducibility of Results , Transducers , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results obtained in the evaluation of intra-vaginal pressure using three different brands of perineometers in nulliparous volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty nulliparous women with no anatomical alterations and/or dysfunction of the pelvic floor were enrolled in our study. All the women had the ability to voluntarily contract their PFM (Pelvic Floor Muscles), as assessed by digital palpation. The intra-vaginal pressure was assessed using three different brands of perineometer (Neurodyn EvolutionTM, SensuPowerTM and PeritronTM). Each volunteer was evaluated on three alternate days by a single examiner using a single brand of perineometer on each day. In the assessment, the volunteers were required to pull (contract) their PFM in and up as strongly as possible 3 times and to sustain the contraction for 5 seconds, with an interval of 30 seconds between each pull. For the statistical analysis, a concordance correlation coefficient was used to compare the values that were obtained with each brand of perineometer. RESULTS: A moderate concordance (0.51) was found between the results from the PeritronTM and NeurodynTM perineometers, a fair concordance (0.21) between the PeritronTM and SensuPowerTM brands and a poor concordance (0.19) between the NeurodynTM and SensuPowerTM brands. CONCLUSION: The concordance of the measurements of the intra-vaginal pressure ranged from poor to moderate, suggesting that perineometers of different brands generate different results.
