ArticleBioMed research international2014
Perineal ultrasound as a complement to POP-Q in the assessment of cystoceles.
Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of pelvic floor ultrasonography for diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2020Pooled it
- International Urogynecological Consultation Chapter 2.2: Imaging in the Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Clinical application of a fixed reference line in the ultrasound quantitative diagnosis of female pelvic organ prolapse.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Perianal ultrasound (PAUS): visualization of sphincter muscles and comparison with digital-rectal examination (DRE) in females.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- [Cystocele and perineal ultrasound : Comparison of reliability and patient satisfaction].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016Article
- [Imaging for urinary incontinence].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the present study we want to propose a classification system to quantify cystoceles by perineal ultrasound (PUS). MATERIALS AND
methods120 PUS data were analyzed measuring the distance between the lowest point of the bladder and the midpubic line (MPL) during rest and Valsalva. Results were classified into groups and compared to POP-Q using the κ-coefficient. Results for exact bladder position were checked for interrater reliability using ICC and Pearson's coefficient and results for classification were checked using the κ-coefficient. Bladder positions at rest and Valsalva were correlated with the distance between these points.
resultsHighly significant differences concerning the position at rest and the distance between rest and Valsalva were found between the groups. For the interrater agreement, the Pearson correlation coefficient was ρ = 0.98, the ICC (A-1) = 0.98, and κ = 1.00. Comparing the classification results for POP-Q and PUS, the kappa-coefficient was κ = 0.65.
conclusionPUS using the MPL and the classification system is a highly reliable tool for the evaluation of cystoceles. PUS shows good correlation with POP-Q. Furthermore, PUS offers a doubtless identification of the descending organ. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical use of the classification system proposed here.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.