↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of abdominal and pelvic floor muscle function among continent and incontinent athletes

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of abdominal and pelvic floor muscle function among continent and incontinent athletes
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00192-018-3701-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keyla Mara dos Santos, Thuane Da Roza, Luis Mochizuki, Eliane Regina Mendoza Arbieto, Soraia Cristina Tonon da Luz

Abstract

Studies have shown that there is a co-contraction between the pelvic floor and abdominal muscles. This study aimed to evaluate pelvic floor and abdominal muscle function in continent and incontinent female athletes and to investigate the association between these muscle groups. This was a cross-sectional study. Forty nulliparous professional female athletes who competed at the municipal level or above participated in this study. All participants underwent a pelvic floor muscle (PFM) and abdominal muscle assessment. PFM function and strength were assessed using the modified Oxford Scale and a perineometer. Abdominal muscle function and strength were assessed using a 4-Pro isokinetic dynamometer. To assess athletes' urinary continence, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-UI-SF) was used. There was a positive association between PFM and abdominal muscle strength among the incontinent athletes (p = 0.006; r = 0.577). The incontinent athletes had greater PFM strength than the continent athletes (p = 0.02). There was no difference in abdominal muscle function between the groups. We found that incontinent athletes have greater PFM strength than continent athletes. This suggests that urinary incontinence in this population is not due to PFM weakness. The positive association between abdominal and PFM strengths in incontinent athletes may be due to frequent co-contraction between these muscle groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 40 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Sports and Recreations 8 7%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 44 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2,449
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,435
of 342,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#27
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 5.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.