"Eyeball" POP-Q examination: Shortcut or valid assessment tool?

International Urogynecology Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1005-1009

  Karp, Deborah R ^a   Peterson, Thais V ^a   Jean Michel, Marjorie ^a   Lefevre, Roger ^a   Davila, G Willy ^a   Aguilar, Vivian C ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF COLORECTAL SURGERY   (United States)

^b 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; PARITY; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE QUANTIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY;

EID: 77956492637     PISSN: 09373462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1139-8     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10-17
2. Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE et al (1996) Interobserver and intraoberver 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 (6):1467-1471
3. Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 7:121-124
4. Barber MD, Lambers AR, Visco AG, Bump R (2000) Effect of patient position on clinical examination of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 96 (1):18-22
5. Swift SE, Herring M (1998) Comparison of pelvic organ prolapse in the dorsal lithotomy compared with the standing position. Obstet Gynecol 91:961-964
6. Visco AG, Wei JT, McClure LA, Handa V, Nygaard I (2003) Effects of examination technique on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results. Int Urogynecol J 14:136-140
7. Auwad W, Freeman RM, Swift SE (2004) Is the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) being used? A survey of members of the International Continence Society (ICS) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Int Urogynecol J 15:324-327
8. Swift SE, Morris S, McKinnie V, Freeman R, Petri E, Scotti R et al (2006) Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Int Urogynecol J 17:615-620
9. Lemos N, Auge A, Lunardelli JL, Carramao SS, Faria A, Aoki T et al (2007) Validation of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Index (POP-Q-I): a novel interpretation of the POP-Q system for optimization of POP research. Int Urogynecol J 18:609-611
10. Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048-1054
11. Prien-Larsen J, Mouritsen L (2001) Pelvic organ prolapse: is ICS grading without POP-Q measurement reliable? Int Urogynecol J 12 (Sup 3): S45
12. Silva WA, Kleeman S, Segal J, Pauls R, Woods S, Karram M (2004) Effects of a full bladder and patient positioning on pelvic organ prolapse assessment. Obstet Gynecol 104 (1):37-41
13. Pearce M, Swift SE, Goodnight W (2008) Pelvic organ prolapse: is there a difference in POP-Q exam results based on time of day, morning or afternoon? Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:200-205
14. Muir TW, Stepp KJ, Barber MD (2003) Adoption of pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in peer-review literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (6):1632-1636