INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the results of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination by visual estimation to measurement. METHODS: Women with pelvic organ prolapse underwent both "eyeball"/estimated and measured POP-Q examinations by two trained examiners in a randomized order. POP-Q points and stage were analyzed using the paired t test, chi-square, Pearson's correlation, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Fifty subjects had a mean age of 60, mean BMI 27.8, and median parity of 2. The POP-Q stages by the measured technique were 18% (9/50) stage 1, 38% (19/50) stage 2, 44% (22/50) stage 3, and 0% (0/50) stage 4. The POP-Q stages based on estimation and measurement were highly associated (p < 0.05). Individual points did not differ significantly between the techniques and did not differ significantly between examiners (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among examiners who routinely perform POP-Q examinations, there is no significant difference between "eyeball"/estimated and measured POP-Q values and stage.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the results of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination by visual estimation to measurement. METHODS:Women with pelvic organ prolapse underwent both "eyeball"/estimated and measured POP-Q examinations by two trained examiners in a randomized order. POP-Q points and stage were analyzed using the paired t test, chi-square, Pearson's correlation, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Fifty subjects had a mean age of 60, mean BMI 27.8, and median parity of 2. The POP-Q stages by the measured technique were 18% (9/50) stage 1, 38% (19/50) stage 2, 44% (22/50) stage 3, and 0% (0/50) stage 4. The POP-Q stages based on estimation and measurement were highly associated (p < 0.05). Individual points did not differ significantly between the techniques and did not differ significantly between examiners (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among examiners who routinely perform POP-Q examinations, there is no significant difference between "eyeball"/estimated and measured POP-Q values and stage.
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: Steven Swift; Sarah Morris; Vikki McKinnie; Robert Freeman; Eckhard Petri; Richard J Scotti; Peter Dwyer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2006-04-06
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: W Andre Silva; Steven Kleeman; Jeffrey Segal; Rachel Pauls; Scott E Woods; Mickey M Karram Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.661