<qa>  What was the PFM assessment performed?The PFM assessment by digital palpation was performed as proposed by Laycock and Jerwood. The physiotherapist introduced the index and middle fingers about 4 cm inside the vagina, and requested to hold the maximum contraction of the PFM, according to the instruction of a movement inward and up with the greatest possible strength. Muscle function was classified by the Oxford Scale Modified, which varies from zero absence of muscle contraction to five strong contraction. The vaginal squeeze pressure was measured through Peritron equipment Cardio Design Pty Ltd, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia equipped with a vaginal probe that has been covered with a non-lubricated condom and then the probe was lubricated with hypoallergenic gel. The probe sensor was connected to a microprocessor hand with a latex tube, which allows the measurement of nip pressure in centimeters of water cmH2O. To obtain the measurements, the subjects remained positioning and vaginal sensor was introduced approximately 3.5cm into the vaginal cavity. Then the device was inflated to 100cmH2O calibration. The female volunteers were oriented and motivated verbally to perform three voluntary maximal contractions sustained for five seconds and one minute interval between them. The correct contraction was checked visually by the physiotherapist. All volunteers were instructed to avoid using the abdominal muscles, gluteal and hip adductor. For statistical analysis, the investigator used the peak pressure provided by the equipment. The PFM contraction strength was assessed by vaginal dynamometer EMG System do Brasil model DFV 020.10110. It is cylindrical in shape 9.5 cm in length and 3.3 cm in diameter, made of steel and is equipped with a load cell 2 cm from its base, which can measure anteroposterior unidirectional compressive strength in Kgforce Kgf. The equipment was previously coated with a condom and lubricated with hypoallergenic gel, which was inserted into the vaginal cavity with the load cell positioned so that it could capture the anteroposterior compression strength. The participant was asked to perform three maximal voluntary PFM contractions for eight seconds with a rest period of 30 seconds between the contractions. The same precautions for correct contraction were adopted. The best value of maximum strength difference between the highest and lowest strength in Kgf was used for statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software SPSSV17, Chicago, IL. Data normality was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk test. 