女性骨盆底肌肉的评估:一项综合综述。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
International Journal of Women's Health Pub Date : 2025-07-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S532149
Laís Bertoldo Frazão, Leticia Assis Couto, Ana Carolina Atanes Mendes Peres, Amélia Pasqual Marques, Anice de Campos Pássaro
{"title":"女性骨盆底肌肉的评估:一项综合综述。","authors":"Laís Bertoldo Frazão, Leticia Assis Couto, Ana Carolina Atanes Mendes Peres, Amélia Pasqual Marques, Anice de Campos Pássaro","doi":"10.2147/IJWH.S532149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Understanding the function of pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) is important to ensure comprehensive healthcare for women with urogenital and anorectal disorders.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically synthesize the measurement variables used in studies that objectively evaluate female PFMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An integrative review was conducted on studies published in Portuguese, Spanish, and English between 2000 and 2020. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 54 studies were included. Of these, 13 (24.07%) used multiple instruments to analyze PFMs, and 22 (40.74%) combined manual assessment with other measurement methods. The Oxford Scale was the most frequently used tool (13 studies). Regarding the assessment instruments and variables used to measure PFMs, manometry was the most commonly employed (30 studies, 55.55%), analyzing four variables, with peak pressure being the most frequently assessed (27 studies). Electromyography (EMG) was performed in 21 studies (38.88%), with nine analysis variables and peak contraction being mostly measured (17 studies). Dynamometry was used in nine studies (16.66%) to assess eight variables, with maximal strength being mostly reported (eight studies). Ultrasonography was also used in nine studies (16.66%), with the levator hiatus area at rest being the most frequently evaluated (eight studies).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no clear standardization of the measurement variables used, with considerable variability in assessment instruments, data collection protocols, and data analysis methods. Advancements in comprehensive healthcare for women with PFMs dysfunction may arise from the development of standardized protocols for data collection and analysis related to the most widely used and established instruments in academic and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14356,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Women's Health","volume":"17 ","pages":"2377-2393"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12318524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Laís Bertoldo Frazão, Leticia Assis Couto, Ana Carolina Atanes Mendes Peres, Amélia Pasqual Marques, Anice de Campos Pássaro\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/IJWH.S532149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Understanding the function of pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) is important to ensure comprehensive healthcare for women with urogenital and anorectal disorders.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically synthesize the measurement variables used in studies that objectively evaluate female PFMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An integrative review was conducted on studies published in Portuguese, Spanish, and English between 2000 and 2020. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 54 studies were included. Of these, 13 (24.07%) used multiple instruments to analyze PFMs, and 22 (40.74%) combined manual assessment with other measurement methods. The Oxford Scale was the most frequently used tool (13 studies). Regarding the assessment instruments and variables used to measure PFMs, manometry was the most commonly employed (30 studies, 55.55%), analyzing four variables, with peak pressure being the most frequently assessed (27 studies). Electromyography (EMG) was performed in 21 studies (38.88%), with nine analysis variables and peak contraction being mostly measured (17 studies). Dynamometry was used in nine studies (16.66%) to assess eight variables, with maximal strength being mostly reported (eight studies). Ultrasonography was also used in nine studies (16.66%), with the levator hiatus area at rest being the most frequently evaluated (eight studies).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no clear standardization of the measurement variables used, with considerable variability in assessment instruments, data collection protocols, and data analysis methods. Advancements in comprehensive healthcare for women with PFMs dysfunction may arise from the development of standardized protocols for data collection and analysis related to the most widely used and established instruments in academic and clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Women's Health\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"2377-2393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12318524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Women's Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S532149\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Women's Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S532149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:了解盆底肌肉的功能(PFMs)是重要的,以确保全面的保健妇女与泌尿生殖和肛肠疾病。目的:系统综合客观评价女性PFMs研究中使用的测量变量。方法:对2000年至2020年间以葡萄牙语、西班牙语和英语发表的研究进行综合回顾。检索的数据库有MEDLINE、EMBASE、Lilacs、Scopus、Web of Science、PEDro和Cochrane Library。结果:共纳入54项研究。其中,13例(24.07%)使用多种仪器分析PFMs, 22例(40.74%)将人工评估与其他测量方法相结合。牛津量表是最常用的工具(13项研究)。关于用于测量pfm的评估工具和变量,最常用的是测压法(30项研究,55.55%),分析了4个变量,最常评估的是峰值压力(27项研究)。21项研究(38.88%)采用肌电图(Electromyography, EMG),其中9个分析变量,主要测量收缩峰(peak contraction)(17项)。9项研究(16.66%)使用动力测定法来评估8个变量,其中最大力量被报道最多(8项研究)。9项研究(16.66%)也使用了超声检查,其中最常检查的是静止时的提肌裂孔区(8项研究)。结论:所使用的测量变量没有明确的标准化,评估工具、数据收集方案和数据分析方法存在相当大的差异。与学术和临床环境中最广泛使用和最成熟的仪器相关的数据收集和分析的标准化方案的发展,可能会促进对PFMs功能障碍妇女的综合保健的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.

Assessment of Female Pelvic Floor Muscles: An Integrative Review.

Introduction: Understanding the function of pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) is important to ensure comprehensive healthcare for women with urogenital and anorectal disorders.

Objective: To systematically synthesize the measurement variables used in studies that objectively evaluate female PFMs.

Methods: An integrative review was conducted on studies published in Portuguese, Spanish, and English between 2000 and 2020. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library.

Results: A total of 54 studies were included. Of these, 13 (24.07%) used multiple instruments to analyze PFMs, and 22 (40.74%) combined manual assessment with other measurement methods. The Oxford Scale was the most frequently used tool (13 studies). Regarding the assessment instruments and variables used to measure PFMs, manometry was the most commonly employed (30 studies, 55.55%), analyzing four variables, with peak pressure being the most frequently assessed (27 studies). Electromyography (EMG) was performed in 21 studies (38.88%), with nine analysis variables and peak contraction being mostly measured (17 studies). Dynamometry was used in nine studies (16.66%) to assess eight variables, with maximal strength being mostly reported (eight studies). Ultrasonography was also used in nine studies (16.66%), with the levator hiatus area at rest being the most frequently evaluated (eight studies).

Conclusion: There was no clear standardization of the measurement variables used, with considerable variability in assessment instruments, data collection protocols, and data analysis methods. Advancements in comprehensive healthcare for women with PFMs dysfunction may arise from the development of standardized protocols for data collection and analysis related to the most widely used and established instruments in academic and clinical settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Women's Health
International Journal of Women's Health OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Women''s Health is an international, peer-reviewed, open access, online journal. Publishing original research, reports, editorials, reviews and commentaries on all aspects of women''s healthcare including gynecology, obstetrics, and breast cancer. Subject areas include: Chronic conditions including cancers of various organs specific and not specific to women Migraine, headaches, arthritis, osteoporosis Endocrine and autoimmune syndromes - asthma, multiple sclerosis, lupus, diabetes Sexual and reproductive health including fertility patterns and emerging technologies to address infertility Infectious disease with chronic sequelae including HIV/AIDS, HPV, PID, and other STDs Psychological and psychosocial conditions - depression across the life span, substance abuse, domestic violence Health maintenance among aging females - factors affecting the quality of life including physical, social and mental issues Avenues for health promotion and disease prevention across the life span Male vs female incidence comparisons for conditions that affect both genders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信