Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2014

01-12-2014 | Original Article

Comparative Study to Evaluate the Intersystem Association and Reliability Between Standard Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System

Authors: Nivedita Raizada, Pratima Mittal, Jyotsna Suri, Anurag Puri, Vivek Sharma

Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kobashi KC. Evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. Campbell-Walsh textbook of Urology, 10th ed. Elsevier-Saunders; 2012. Kobashi KC. Evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. Campbell-Walsh textbook of Urology, 10th ed. Elsevier-Saunders; 2012.
2.
go back to reference Richter HE, Varner RE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology, 14th ed. Lippincott Williams-Wilkins; 2007. Richter HE, Varner RE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology, 14th ed. Lippincott Williams-Wilkins; 2007.
3.
go back to reference 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. 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.
4.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Athanasiou S, Hill S, Gleeson C, et al. Validation of the ICS proposed pelvic prolapse descriptive system. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:414–5. Athanasiou S, Hill S, Gleeson C, et al. Validation of the ICS proposed pelvic prolapse descriptive system. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:414–5.
8.
go back to reference 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. 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.
9.
go back to reference 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Steele A, Mallapeddi P, Welgoss J, et al. Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1458–64.PubMedCrossRef Steele A, Mallapeddi P, Welgoss J, et al. Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1458–64.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative Study to Evaluate the Intersystem Association and Reliability Between Standard Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System
Authors
Nivedita Raizada
Pratima Mittal
Jyotsna Suri
Anurag Puri
Vivek Sharma
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0971-9202
Electronic ISSN: 0975-6434
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0537-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2014 Go to the issue