| Title |
Quantitative analyses of variability in normal vaginal shape and dimension on MR images
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-016-2949-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jiajia Luo, Cornelia Betschart, James A. Ashton-Miller, John O. L. DeLancey |
| Abstract |
We present a technique for quantifying inter-individual variability in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimension, and report findings in healthy women. Eighty women (age: 28∼70 years) with normal pelvic organ support underwent supine, multi-planar proton-density MRI. Vaginal width was assessed at five evenly-spaced locations, and vaginal axis, length, and surface area were quantified via ImageJ and MATLAB. The mid-sagittal plane angles, relative to the horizontal, of three vaginal axes were 90 ± 11, 72 ± 21, and 41 ± 22° (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) vaginal widths were 17 ± 5, 24 ± 4, 30 ± 7, 41 ± 9, and 45 ± 12 mm at the five locations (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). Mid-sagittal lengths for anterior and posterior vaginal walls were 63 ± 9 and 98 ± 18 mm respectively. The vaginal surface area was 72 ± 21 cm(2) (range: 34 ∼ 164 cm(2)). The coefficient of determination between any demographic variable and any vaginal dimension did not exceed 0.16. Large variations in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimensions were not explained by body size or other demographic variables. This variation has implications for reconstructive surgery, intravaginal and surgical product design, and vaginal drug delivery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 26% |
| Engineering | 16 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,385,100
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#70
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,306
of 405,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.