Intra-session-reliability of pelvic floor muscle electromyography during running in continent and stress urinary incontinent women
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leitner M1, Moser H1, Patric E1, Kuhn A2, Radlinger L11Bern University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health Professions, Bern, Switzerland, 2Bern University Hospital, Gynaecology, Bern, SwitzerlandBackground: A prevalence of 41% of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has been found in female athletes with the highest prevalence in sports involving impact activities. Dynamic measurements of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) during whole body movements, such as running, contribute to better understand the pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence.Purpose: Analysis of reliability is important in order to get information about the consistency of a measurement and whether a systematic measurement error affected the results. Aspects of intra-session reliability of PFM activity during running in a continent sample have been reported previously. The aim of this study was to determine the intra-session reliability of the temporal and magnitude components of EMG activity during running at three different speeds in continent (CON) and SUI-affected women.Methods: Fifty women were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study (CON: n=28; SUI: n=22). SUI was diagnosed according to the ICIQ-UIsf questionnaire. Surface EMG activity from the PFMs during running on a treadmill was recorded with a vaginal probe. EMG was measured during 10 steps at speeds of 7, 11 and 15 km/h. Data from 30 ms before to 150 ms after heel-strike were RMS-parameterized to 6 time- intervals of 30 ms. The reference value, set as 100% for EMG normalization, was calculated as the mean of the peak activity during two maximum voluntary contractions (MVC). Descriptive statistics, ICC (2,1), SEM, MD and ANOVA were computed for the EMG of the 6 time-intervals, amplitude (EMGmax) and time point (tEMGmax) of maximum EMG.Results: All variables demonstrated no systematic error (ANOVA n. s.). Ranges of reliability indices of the seven EMG-variables (%MVC) are presented for CON and SUI and different speeds: (CON, 7 km/h: ICC = .535-.692, SEM = 12.3-22.0, MD = 8.8-15.4), (CON, 11 km/h: ICC = .581-.777, SEM = 16.0-33.9, MD = 9.7-19.3), (CON, 15 km/h: ICC = .699-.864, SEM = 20.3-37.1, MD = 11.9-15.5), (SUI, 7 km/h: ICC = .746-.915, SEM = 18.2-32.7, MD = 9.9-11.1), (SUI, 11 Km/h: ICC = .780-.926, SEM = 18.2-31.5, MD = 7.4-14.6), (SUI, 15 km/h: ICC = .750-.886, SEM = 27.6-47.2, MD = 14.0-20.0). Referring to the time variable (ms), ICCs ranged from .392-.585 in CON and .380-.623 in SUI, SEM ranged from 369.4-441.0 in CON and 507.6-511.9 in SUI and MD from 357.3-387.9 in CON and 389.9-499.5 in SUI.Conclusion(s): ICC values (relative reliability) of the EMG variables indicate a moderate to good reliability. SEM and MD values (absolute reliability) show moderate reliability. Higher reliability with increasing speeds can be observed and may be interpreted as less variation in running performance with higher speed. Low reliability of time variables may imply that temporal function varies more across the strides.Implications: Contrary to the low reliability seen in the temporal component of muscle activity, the magnitude components of muscle activity (%MVC) were more reliable. Analysis of reliability showed no systematic error of measurement. Prospective efforts for the evaluation of PFMs EMG should consider inter-session reliability and whether the average of 20-30 steps might yield better reliability indices.Keywords: Pelvic Floor, Female, Stress Urinary IncontinenceFunding acknowledgements: Bern University of Applied Sciences, SwitzerlandTopic: Women's & men's pelvic health; Sport & sports injuries; Human movement analysisEthics approval required: YesInstitution: Bern University of Applied Sciences, SwitzerlandEthics committee: Ethical Committee of the Canton of Bern, SwitzerlandEthics number: No. 391/14All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».