| Literature DB >> 18217176 |
Nucélio Luiz de Barros Moreira Lemos1, Antonio Pedro Flores Auge, Jacqueline Leme Lunardelli, Silvia da Silva Carramão, Ana Luiza Antunes Faria, Tsutomu Aoki.
Abstract
Even though very precise at describing pelvic organ position, our criticism to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system is its limited ability to quantify the prolapse itself, since it still classifies prolapse into four stages, almost the same way as Baden and Walker (Clin Obstet Gynecol 15(4):1070-1072, 1972) did in 1972. As a result, the same grade can include a wide prolapse intensity range. The objective of this study was to assess inter-observer reliability in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Index (POP-Q-I; Lemos et al., Int Urogynecol J 18(6):609-611, 2007) on a prospective randomized trial. Fifty consecutive women were prospectively examined by two members of the urogynecology staff, blinded to each other's results. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess inter-observer reliability. Excellent correlation coefficients were observed, with an overall coefficient of 96.5% (CI: 0.889-1.042; p < 0.0001). The POP-Q-I is a method that makes POP research more efficient by directly measuring prolapse as a continuous variable, which is statistically more powerful than the categorical variables proposed by the POP-Q system. This study suggests that the POP-Q-I is applicable to clinical POP research.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18217176 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-007-0556-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct