Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
“Eyeball” POP-Q examination: shortcut or valid assessment tool?
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Karp, Deborah R. Peterson, Thais Villela Jean-Michel, Marjorie Lefèvre, Roger Davila, G. Willy Aguilar, Vivian C. |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | Introduction and hypothesisThe objective of this study was to compare the results of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination by visual estimation to measurement.MethodsWomen 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.ResultsFifty 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).ConclusionAmong examiners who routinely perform POP-Q examinations, there is no significant difference between “eyeball”/estimated and measured POP-Q values and stage. |
| Starting Page | 1005 |
| Ending Page | 1009 |
| Page Count | 5 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-010-1139-8 |
| PubMed reference number | 20440479 |
| Journal | Medline |
| Volume Number | 21 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.laparoscopiaginecologica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/popq-5.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1139-8 |
| Journal | International Urogynecology Journal |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |