Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 6/2006

01-11-2006 | Original Article

Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system

Authors: Steven Swift, Sarah Morris, Vikki McKinnie, Robert Freeman, Eckhard Petri, Richard J. Scotti, Peter Dwyer

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Our objective was to determine the inter-examiner agreement of a simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) exam and to assess its correlation with the standard POPQ exam. This study consists of two parts; both were preformed in a prospective, randomized, blinded fashion on women presenting with complaints attributed to pelvic organ support defects. The first study was done to determine the inter-examiner reliability of a simplified POPQ exam. The simplified POPQ exam is based on the POPQ with similar ordinal staging but with only four points measured instead of nine. Forty-eight women underwent exams by five different investigators. The order of exams was randomized and the examiners were blinded to the results of each other’s findings. The results of these two exams were compared using weighted kappa statistics. The second part of the study was done to determine the inter-system agreement between the simplified vs standard POPQ exam. A group of 49 women were examined by four different investigators: one using the simplified and the other using standard POPQ exams. The order of the exams was randomized and the examiners were blinded to the results of each other’s exam. Kendall’s tau-b statistics were used to determine the inter-system agreement. For the inter-examiner reliability of the POPQ exam, the average age was 60±13 years. The weighted kappa statistics for the inter-examiner reliability of the simplified prolapse classification system were 0.86 for the overall stage, 0.89 and 0.86 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls, respectively, 0.82 for the apex/cuff, and 0.72 for the cervix. All demonstrate significant agreement. For the inter-system association between the simplified POPQ and standard POPQ, the average age was 61±15 year. The Kendall’s tau-b value for overall stage was 0.90, 0.83, and 0.87 for the anterior and posterior walls respectively, and 0.78 for the cuff/apex and 0.98 for the cervix. There is good inter-examiner agreement of a simplified POPQ classification system and it appears to have good inter-system association with the POPQ.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Brubaker L, Norton P (1996) Current clinical nomenclature for description of pelvic organ prolapse. J Pelvic Surg 2:257–259 Brubaker L, Norton P (1996) Current clinical nomenclature for description of pelvic organ prolapse. J Pelvic Surg 2:257–259
2.
go back to reference Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17CrossRefPubMed Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for catagorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for catagorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
go back to reference American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1995) Pelvic organ prolapse. ACOG Technical Bulletin 214, ACOG, Washington, DC ACOG American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1995) Pelvic organ prolapse. ACOG Technical Bulletin 214, ACOG, Washington, DC ACOG
6.
go back to reference Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048–1054PubMedCrossRef Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048–1054PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Physical diagnosis in the evaluation of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1055–1069PubMedCrossRef Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Physical diagnosis in the evaluation of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1055–1069PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Friedman EA, Little WA (1961) The conflict of nomenclature for descensus uteri. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:817–820PubMed Friedman EA, Little WA (1961) The conflict of nomenclature for descensus uteri. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:817–820PubMed
9.
go back to reference 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 175:1467–1471CrossRefPubMed 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 175:1467–1471CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Athanasiou S, Hill S, Gleeson C, Anders K, Cardozo L (1995) Validation of the ICS proposed pelvic prolapse descriptive system. Neurourol Urodyn 14:414–415 (Abstract) Athanasiou S, Hill S, Gleeson C, Anders K, Cardozo L (1995) Validation of the ICS proposed pelvic prolapse descriptive system. Neurourol Urodyn 14:414–415 (Abstract)
11.
go back to reference Schussler B, Peschers U (1995) Standardisation of terminology of female genital prolapse according to the new ICS criteria: inter-examiner reliability. Neurourol Urodyn 14:437–438 (Abstract) Schussler B, Peschers U (1995) Standardisation of terminology of female genital prolapse according to the new ICS criteria: inter-examiner reliability. Neurourol Urodyn 14:437–438 (Abstract)
12.
go back to reference Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:121–124CrossRefPubMed Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:121–124CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Steele A, Mallapeddi P, Welgoss J et al (1998) Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1458–1464CrossRefPubMed Steele A, Mallapeddi P, Welgoss J et al (1998) Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1458–1464CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Prien-Larsen J, Mouritsen L (2001) Pelvic organ prolapse: is ICS-grading without POP-Q measurement reliable? Int Urogynecol J 12(Supp 3):S45 (Abstract) Prien-Larsen J, Mouritsen L (2001) Pelvic organ prolapse: is ICS-grading without POP-Q measurement reliable? Int Urogynecol J 12(Supp 3):S45 (Abstract)
15.
go back to reference 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 15:324–327 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 15:324–327
16.
go back to reference Muir T, Stepp K, Barber M (2003) Adoption of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in peer-reviewed literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1632–1636CrossRefPubMed Muir T, Stepp K, Barber M (2003) Adoption of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in peer-reviewed literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1632–1636CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Swift SE, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, 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 192:795–806CrossRefPubMed Swift SE, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, 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 192:795–806CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic healthcare. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMed Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic healthcare. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference 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 189:372–379CrossRefPubMed 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 189:372–379CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system
Authors
Steven Swift
Sarah Morris
Vikki McKinnie
Robert Freeman
Eckhard Petri
Richard J. Scotti
Peter Dwyer
Publication date
01-11-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0076-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2006

International Urogynecology Journal 6/2006 Go to the issue