Reliability and validity of intravaginal pressure measurements with a new intravaginal pressure device: The FemFit®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the reliability and validity of intravaginal pressure measurements acquired during pelvic floor muscle (PFM) tasks in different body positions using the FemFit®, a new intravaginal pressure device. METHODS: Twenty healthy adult women participated in this study. Two assessment sessions were conducted. Intravaginal pressure measurements using the FemFit® were repeated during PFM contraction and straining maneuvers while lying and standing. Maximal intravaginal pressures were collated and compared within and between sessions. They were also correlated to maximal force measurements obtained by dynamometry and vaginal digital palpation. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement and Bland-Altman plots. The validity of the pressure measurements was assessed using Pearson's correlation (dynamometry) and Spearman's rho (palpation). RESULTS: This test-retest study indicate excellent reliability for PFM contraction and straining maneuver both in lying and standing, within and between sessions. For the straining maneuver while standing, increased variability was suggested by a wider limit of agreement on Bland-Altman plots (spanning 31.3 to 43.3mm Hg). A significant moderate to strong correlation was found when comparing measurements of PFM contraction using the FemFit® and the dynamometer or the palpation (Pearson's coefficient = 0.72, P = .006; Spearman's rho = 0.68, P = .005, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our research findings suggest that intravaginal pressures can be reliably measured during PFM contraction and straining manoeuver while lying and standing, using the FemFit® device, both within and between sessions. A moderate to strong correlation between the FemFit® pressure and the force measurements obtained by dynamometry or palpation reinforce the validity of measurements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".