» Articles » PMID: 16598414

Validation of a Simplified Technique for Using the POPQ Pelvic Organ Prolapse Classification System

Overview
Date 2006 Apr 7
PMID 16598414
Citations 43
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Our objective was to determine the inter-examiner agreement of a simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) exam and to assess its correlation with the standard POPQ exam. This study consists of two parts; both were performed in a prospective, randomized, blinded fashion on women presenting with complaints attributed to pelvic organ support defects. The first study was done to determine the inter-examiner reliability of a simplified POPQ exam. The simplified POPQ exam is based on the POPQ with similar ordinal staging but with only four points measured instead of nine. Forty-eight women underwent exams by five different investigators. The order of exams was randomized and the examiners were blinded to the results of each other's findings. The results of these two exams were compared using weighted kappa statistics. The second part of the study was done to determine the inter-system agreement between the simplified vs standard POPQ exam. A group of 49 women were examined by four different investigators: one using the simplified and the other using standard POPQ exams. The order of the exams was randomized and the examiners were blinded to the results of each other's exam. Kendall's tau-b statistics were used to determine the inter-system agreement. For the inter-examiner reliability of the POPQ exam, the average age was 60+/-13 years. The weighted kappa statistics for the inter-examiner reliability of the simplified prolapse classification system were 0.86 for the overall stage, 0.89 and 0.86 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls, respectively, 0.82 for the apex/cuff, and 0.72 for the cervix. All demonstrate significant agreement. For the inter-system association between the simplified POPQ and standard POPQ, the average age was 61+/-15 year. The Kendall's tau-b value for overall stage was 0.90, 0.83, and 0.87 for the anterior and posterior walls respectively, and 0.78 for the cuff/apex and 0.98 for the cervix. There is good inter-examiner agreement of a simplified POPQ classification system and it appears to have good inter-system association with the POPQ.

Citing Articles

Continuous Stitches Versus Simple Interrupted Stitches During Anterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Bekos C, Lange S, Koch M, Umek W, Carlin G, Heinzl F J Clin Med. 2025; 14(2).

PMID: 39860539 PMC: 11766088. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14020534.


Prevalence and risk factors of pelvic organ prolapse among women in Sidama region, Ethiopia: A community-based survey.

Siyoum M, Nardos R, Teklesilasie W, Astatkie A Womens Health (Lond). 2024; 20:17455057241265078.

PMID: 39054684 PMC: 11282545. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241265078.


Frequency of cul-de-sac obliteration in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective analysis.

Hirata G, Miyagi E, Maruyama Y, Ishikawa R, Hirabuki T Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 309(6):2931-2935.

PMID: 38584245 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07476-4.


International Urogynecology consultation chapter 2 committee 3: the clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse including investigations into associated morbidity/pelvic floor dysfunction.

Barbier H, Carberry C, Karjalainen P, Mahoney C, Galan V, Rosamilia A Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(11):2657-2688.

PMID: 37737436 PMC: 10682140. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05629-8.


Reliability and validity of the Sidaamu Afoo version of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score questionnaire.

Siyoum M, Teklesilasie W, Nardos R, Sirak B, Astatkie A BMC Womens Health. 2023; 23(1):324.

PMID: 37340303 PMC: 10283297. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02478-x.


References
1.
Swift S . The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183(2):277-85. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2000.107583. View

2.
BADEN W, Walker T . Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972; 15(4):1048-54. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-197212000-00020. View

3.
Kobak W, Rosenberger K, Walters M . Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996; 7(3):121-4. DOI: 10.1007/BF01894199. View

4.
Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker L, DeLancey J, Klarskov P . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0. View

5.
BADEN W, Walker T . Physical diagnosis in the evaluation of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972; 15(4):1055-69. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-197212000-00021. View