Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multicenter inter-examiner agreement trial for the validation of simplified POPQ system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-examiner agreement of a previously described simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification (S-POP) system in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, blinded fashion. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) system’s use in daily practice is hampered due to perceived complexity and difficulty of use. The S-POP was introduced in order to make the POPQ user-friendly and increase its usage (Swift et al. in Int Urogynecol J 17(6):615–620, 2006).

Methods

Five hundred eleven subjects underwent two separate pelvic exams in random order by two blinded examiners employing the S-POP at 12 centers around the world. Data were compared using weighted kappa statistics.

Results

The weighted kappa statistics for the inter-examiner reliability of the S-POP were 0.87 for the overall stage, 0.89 and 0.81 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls, 0.82 for the apex/cuff 0.89, and 0.84 for the cervix and vaginal fornix, respectively.

Conclusion

There is an almost perfect inter-examiner agreement of the S-POP system for the overall stage and each point within the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Friedman EA, Little WA (1961) The conflict of nomenclature for descensus uteri. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:817–820

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Porges RF (1963) A practical system of diagnosis and classification of pelvic relaxations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 117:761–773

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of pelvic relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brubaker L, Norton P (1996) Current clinical nomenclature for description of pelvic organ prolapse. J Pelvic Surg 2:257–259

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancy JOL, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of the terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW et al (1996) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 7:121–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Muir TW, Stepp KJ, Barber MD (2003) Adoption of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in peer-reviewed literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Visco AG, Wei JT, McClure LA, Handa VL, Nygaard IE (2003) Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results. Int Urogynecol J 14:136–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Treszezamsky AD, Rascoff L, Shahryarinejad A, Vardy MD (2010) Use of pelvic organ prolapse staging systems in published articles of selected specialized journals. Int Urogyn J 21:359–363. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-1044-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Auwad W, Freeman RM, Swift S (2004) Is the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) being used? A survey of members of the International Continence Society (ICS) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:324

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Davila GW, Goniem GM, Kapoor DS, Contreras-Ortiz O (2002) Pelvic floor dysfunction management practice pattern: a survey of members of the International Urogynecological Association. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13(5):319–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Swift SE, Morris S, McKinnie V (2006) Validation of a simplified technique for using the POP-Q pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int Urogynecol J 17(6):615–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for catagorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Swift SE, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, Wang W, Wang W, Schaffer J (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST); the distribution, clinical definition and epidemiology of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic healthcare. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Swift SE, Tate SB, Nichols J (2003) Correlation of symptomology with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:372–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prime Care of SE OH, Genesis Health System, 1210, Ashland Avenue, Zanesville, OH, 43701, USA

    Mitesh Parekh

  2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Steven Swift & Jeffrey E. Korte

  3. Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Nucelio Lemos & Jose Carlos Conceicao

  4. Southport and Formby District Hospital, Southport, UK

    Mohsen Iskander

  5. Derriford Hospital, Derriford, Plymouth, UK

    Bob Freeman

  6. City Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    A. S. Arunkalaivanan

  7. General Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Alois Martan

  8. Warwick Hospital, Warwick, UK

    Olanrewaju Sorinola

  9. Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Diaa Rizk

  10. Faculty Hospital Bulkova, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Michael Halaska

  11. Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

    Grzegorz Surkont

  12. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

    Carlos Medina

Authors
  1. Mitesh Parekh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Swift
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nucelio Lemos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohsen Iskander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bob Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. S. Arunkalaivanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alois Martan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olanrewaju Sorinola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Diaa Rizk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael Halaska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Grzegorz Surkont
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Carlos Medina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jose Carlos Conceicao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jeffrey E. Korte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitesh Parekh.

Appendix 1: list of participating centers

Appendix 1: list of participating centers

  1. (1)

    Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

  2. (2)

    Southport and Formby District Hospital, Southport, United Kingdom

  3. (3)

    Derriford Hospital, Derriford, Plymouth, United Kingdom

  4. (4)

    City Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom

  5. (5)

    Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

  6. (6)

    General Faculty Hospital of Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

  7. (7)

    Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

  8. (8)

    Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  9. (9)

    Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA

  10. (10)

    Warwick Hospital, Warwick, United Kingdom

  11. (11)

    Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

  12. (12)

    Faculty Hospital Bulkova of Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parekh, M., Swift, S., Lemos, N. et al. Multicenter inter-examiner agreement trial for the validation of simplified POPQ system. Int Urogynecol J 22, 645–650 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1395-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1395-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation