International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 347–352 | Cite as

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 prolapse

  • Jittima Manonai
  • Lone Mouritsen
  • Paulo Palma
  • Oscar Contreras-Ortiz
  • Jeffrey E. Korte
  • Steven Swift
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study is to determine the association between the POPQ and a simplified version of the POPQ.


This was an observational study. The subjects with pelvic floor disorder symptoms underwent two exams: a POPQ exam and a simplified POPQ. To compare with the simplified POPQ, vaginal segments of the POPQ exam were defined using points Ba, Bp, C, and D. Primary outcome was the association between the overall ordinal stages from each exam.


One hundred forty-three subjects with mean age of 56 +/− 13 years. Twenty three subjects were status post-hysterectomy. The Kendall's tau-b statistic for overall stage was 0.80, for the anterior vaginal wall the Kendall's tau-b was 0.71, for the posterior vaginal wall segment the Kendall's tau-b was 0.71, for the cervix the Kendall's tau-b was 0.88, for the posterior fornix/vaginal cuff the Kendall's tau-b was 0.85.


There is substantial association between the POPQ and a simplified version of the POPQ.


Simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system Standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system Inter-system association 


  1. 1.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muir TW, Stepp KJ, Barber MD (2003) Adoption of the pelvic organ prolapsed quantification system in peer-reviewed literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1632–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Treszezamsky AD, Rascoff L, Shahryarinejad A, Vardy MD (2010) Use of pelvic organ prolapse staging systems in published articles of selected specialized journals. Int Urogynecol J 21:359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prien-Larsen J, Mouritsen L (2001) Pelvic organ prolapse: is ICS-grading without POP-Q measurement reliable? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(Suppl):45, abstractGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swift S, Morris S, McKinnie V, Freeman R, Petri E, Scotti RJ et al (2006) Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Int Urogynecol J 17:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30:81–93Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Cartwright R (2008) Experiences and expectations of women with urogenital prolapse: a quantitative and qualitative exploration. BJOG 115:1362–1368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLancey JOL (2005) The hidden epidemics of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1488–1495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GC, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE, Bump RC (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 175:1467–1471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:121–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bland DR, Earle BB, Vitolins MZ, Burke G (1999) Use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse staging system of the International Continence Society, American Urogynecologic Society, and Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in perimenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1324–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 15:324–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steele A, Mallipeddi P, Welgoss J, Soled S, Kohli N, Karram M (1998) Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1458–1463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jittima Manonai
    • 1
  • Lone Mouritsen
    • 2
  • Paulo Palma
    • 3
  • Oscar Contreras-Ortiz
    • 4
  • Jeffrey E. Korte
    • 5
  • Steven Swift
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Glostrup County HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenGlostrupDenmark
  3. 3.Universidade Estadual de CampinasSao PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Department of Medicine/Division of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations