Abstract
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.