Reliability of speed of contraction and endurance dynamometric measurements of the pelvic floor musculature in stress incontinent parous women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of dynamometric measurements of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) during speed and endurance tests. METHODS: Nineteen parous women suffering from stress urinary incontinence (SUI) participated in the study. Two PFM evaluation sessions were conducted using the dynamometric speculum. For the speed test, the women were instructed to contract maximally and relax as quickly as possible during a 15-s test period. The speed of contraction was quantified by the rate of force development of the first contraction and the number of contractions performed. The maximal strength value attained during the speed test was also extracted from the curves. For the endurance test, the subjects were asked to maintain a maximal contraction for 90 s. The normalized area under the force curve was utilized as the endurance parameter. The reliability of the data was evaluated using the generalizability theory. Two reliability estimates were calculated, the dependability indices (Phi) and the standard error of measurement (SEM), for one measurement session involving one trial. RESULTS: The indices of dependability obtained indicate that the reliability of the speed of contraction and endurance parameters are good (Phi=0.79-0.92). The corresponding SEMs were 1.39 N/s, 1 contraction, 1.00 N, and 298%*s for the rate of force development, number of contractions, maximal strength and normalized area, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the speed of contraction and endurance parameters possess good test-retest reliability. The inclusion of these parameters in the PFM assessment is therefore highly recommended for assessing changes in PFM in incontinent women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".