ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2010
Feasibility, inter- and intra-rater reliability of physiotherapists measuring prolapse using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2015Trial
- Pelvic floor muscle training as an adjunct to prolapse surgery: a randomised feasibility study.International urogynecology journal · 2014Trial
- Investigating the Efficacy of an 18-Week Postpartum Rehabilitation and Physical Development Intervention on Occupational Physical Performance and Musculoskeletal Health in UK Servicewomen: Protocol for an Independent Group Study Design.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Relationship of degree of uterine prolapse between pelvic examination in lithotomy position with cervical traction and pelvic examination in standing position.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- A survey of prolapse practice in UK women's health physiotherapists: what has changed in the last decade?International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThere is no agreed assessment tool for physiotherapists treating pelvic organ prolapse. This study hypothesised that pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) assessment was a feasible measure for use by physiotherapists and tested inter- and intra-rater agreement.
methodsSix physiotherapists and two gynaecologists participated. Women were recruited from uro/gynaecology clinics. Two POP-Q examinations were performed at the first clinic (gynaecologist, physiotherapist 1) and 1 week later (physiotherapist 1, physiotherapist 2). The examination was timed and women completed a short questionnaire. Using weighted kappa, agreement of POP-Q stage was assessed.
resultsForty-five women were recruited (median age 59, range 32-87 years). Agreement between gynaecologist and physiotherapist was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.63). Weighted kappa was 0.67 for inter-rater agreement between two different physiotherapists and 0.71 for intra-rater reliability for the same physiotherapist. Examination time was significantly shorter (difference 53 +/- 73 s, p < 0.001) for gynaecologists. Participants found the examination acceptable.
conclusionsPOP-Q is a feasible and reliable outcome measure for physiotherapists to use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20107767What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.