Cited by 98Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchUterine Myomas and Treatments

What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent

Dietz, H. P., Mann, K. P.·2014·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between symptoms of prolapse and International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (ICS POP-Q) measurements in order to establish optimal cutoffs for predicting prolapse symptoms using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) statistics.Methods This was a retrospective study using 764 archived data sets of patients seen for symptoms of lower urinary tract and pelvic floor dysfunction between March 2011 and November 2012. Main outcome measure was symptoms of prolapse. Explanatory parameters were Ba, C, and Bp as defined by the ICS POP-Q. Patient age, body mass index (BMI), previous hysterectomy or incontinence/prolapse surgery, and vaginal parity were tested for a confounding effect on the relationship between ICS POP-Q measurements and symptoms of prolapse.Results Optimal cutoffs for predicting prolapse symptoms were defined as follows: Ba = -0.5 (sensitivity 69 %, specificity 71 %), C =-5 (sensitivity 67 %, specificity 64 %), Bp = -0.5 (sensitivity 63 %, specificity 62 %). ROC statistics resulted in an area under the curve of 0.768 for Ba [confidence interval (CI) 0.729-0.807), for C of 0.724 (CI 0.672-0.776), and for Bp of 0.686 (CI 0.639-0.733).Conclusion Our findings suggest that the ICS POP-Q staging system requires revision. Prolapse of the anterior and posterior vaginal wall of < -1 should probably be regarded as normal. On the other hand, stage 1 uterine prolapse as currently defined seems highly relevant.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-013-2307-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 98

Authors
Dietz, H. P., & Mann, K. P.
Affiliations
  • Nepean Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Dietz, H. P.
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2014-02-07
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
451-455
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2059160102
Cited by
98
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
10.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, prolapse symptoms, cut-off values, pelvic organ descent, anterior vaginal wall, posterior vaginal wall, receiver operating characteristic, pelvic floor dysfunction, lower urinary tract symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Young Adult, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review