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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kobashi KC. Evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. Campbell-Walsh textbook of Urology, 10th ed. Elsevier-Saunders; 2012.
Richter HE, Varner RE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology, 14th ed. Lippincott Williams-Wilkins; 2007.
Auwad W, Freeman RM, Swift S. 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. 2004;15:324–7.
Swift S, Morris S, McKinnie V, et al. Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:615–20.
Manonai J, Mouritsen L, Palma P, et al. The inter-system association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (S-POP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapsed. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:347–52.
Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GC, et al. 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. 1996;175:1467–71.
Athanasiou S, Hill S, Gleeson C, et al. Validation of the ICS proposed pelvic prolapse descriptive system. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:414–5.
Schussler B, Peschers U. Standardisation of terminology of female genital prolapse according to the new ICS criteria: interexaminer reliability. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:437–8.
Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD. Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996;7:121–4.
Steele A, Mallapeddi P, Welgoss J, et al. Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1458–64.
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raizada, N., Mittal, P., Suri, J. et al. Comparative Study to Evaluate the Intersystem Association and Reliability Between Standard Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System. J Obstet Gynecol India 64, 421–424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0537-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0537-0