INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no agreed assessment tool for physiotherapists treating pelvic organ prolapse. This study hypothesised that pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) assessment was a feasible measure for use by physiotherapists and tested inter- and intra-rater agreement. METHODS: Six physiotherapists and two gynaecologists participated. Women were recruited from uro/gynaecology clinics. Two POP-Q examinations were performed at the first clinic (gynaecologist, physiotherapist 1) and 1 week later (physiotherapist 1, physiotherapist 2). The examination was timed and women completed a short questionnaire. Using weighted kappa, agreement of POP-Q stage was assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five women were recruited (median age 59, range 32-87 years). Agreement between gynaecologist and physiotherapist was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.63). Weighted kappa was 0.67 for inter-rater agreement between two different physiotherapists and 0.71 for intra-rater reliability for the same physiotherapist. Examination time was significantly shorter (difference 53 +/- 73 s, p < 0.001) for gynaecologists. Participants found the examination acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: POP-Q is a feasible and reliable outcome measure for physiotherapists to use.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no agreed assessment tool for physiotherapists treating pelvic organ prolapse. This study hypothesised that pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) assessment was a feasible measure for use by physiotherapists and tested inter- and intra-rater agreement. METHODS: Six physiotherapists and two gynaecologists participated. Women were recruited from uro/gynaecology clinics. Two POP-Q examinations were performed at the first clinic (gynaecologist, physiotherapist 1) and 1 week later (physiotherapist 1, physiotherapist 2). The examination was timed and women completed a short questionnaire. Using weighted kappa, agreement of POP-Q stage was assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five women were recruited (median age 59, range 32-87 years). Agreement between gynaecologist and physiotherapist was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.63). Weighted kappa was 0.67 for inter-rater agreement between two different physiotherapists and 0.71 for intra-rater reliability for the same physiotherapist. Examination time was significantly shorter (difference 53 +/- 73 s, p < 0.001) for gynaecologists. Participants found the examination acceptable. CONCLUSIONS:POP-Q is a feasible and reliable outcome measure for physiotherapists to use.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A F Hall; J P Theofrastous; G W Cundiff; R L Harris; L F Hamilton; S E Swift; R C Bump Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Anthony G Visco; John T Wei; Leslie Ain McClure; Victoria L Handa; Ingrid E Nygaard Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2003-03-28
Authors: Kirsty Jayne Elliott-Sale; Emma Louise Bostock; Thea Jackson; Sophie Louise Wardle; Thomas James O'Leary; Julie Patricia Greeves; Craig Sale Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-01