Nivedita Raizada1, Pratima Mittal1, Jyotsna Suri1, Anurag Puri2, Vivek Sharma2. 1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, 110029 India. 2. Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGMER) & SSKM Hospital, 244, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, 700020 India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) classification system and the simplified pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP) classification system. METHOD: This is an observational study, in which 100 subjects, whose average age was 60 ± 10 years, with pelvic floor disorder symptoms underwent two systems of examinations-POPQ classification system and S-POP classification system at Safdarjung hospital-done by four gynecologists (two specialists and two resident doctors) using a prospective randomized study, blinded to each other's findings. Data were compared using appropriate statistics. RESULTS: The weighted Kappa statistics for the intersystem reliability of the S-POP classification system compared with standard POPQ classification system were 0.82 for the overall stage: 0.83 and 0.86 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls respectively; 0.81 for the apex/vaginal cuff; and 0.89 for the cervix. All these results demonstrate significant agreement between the two systems. CONCLUSION: There is almost perfect intersystem agreement between the S-POP classification system and the standard POPQ classification system in respect of the overall stage as well as each point within the same system.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) classification system and the simplified pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP) classification system. METHOD: This is an observational study, in which 100 subjects, whose average age was 60 ± 10 years, with pelvic floor disorder symptoms underwent two systems of examinations-POPQ classification system and S-POP classification system at Safdarjung hospital-done by four gynecologists (two specialists and two resident doctors) using a prospective randomized study, blinded to each other's findings. Data were compared using appropriate statistics. RESULTS: The weighted Kappa statistics for the intersystem reliability of the S-POP classification system compared with standard POPQ classification system were 0.82 for the overall stage: 0.83 and 0.86 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls respectively; 0.81 for the apex/vaginal cuff; and 0.89 for the cervix. All these results demonstrate significant agreement between the two systems. CONCLUSION: There is almost perfect intersystem agreement between the S-POP classification system and the standard POPQ classification system in respect of the overall stage as well as each point within the same system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Examination; Hymen; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ); Simplified pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP); Valsalva
Authors: Jittima Manonai; Lone Mouritsen; Paulo Palma; Oscar Contreras-Ortiz; Jeffrey E Korte; Steven Swift Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-10-09 Impact factor: 2.894
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