ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Putting POP-Q to the test: does C - D = cervical length?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- A novel technique for the measurement of cervical length in non-pregnant women.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of preoperative ultrasonography, cervical length measurement, and POP-Q examination in cervical elongation estimation.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe investigated the correlation between calculated cervical length (CCL) and gross specimen cervical length (GCL) after total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsThis was a retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone TVH with reconstructive surgery for POP between 2013 and 2015. Patients without an intact specimen or documented cervical length in the pathology report were excluded. CCL was defined as the absolute difference between Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points C and D. GCL was obtained from the pathology report as the distance from the external to the internal os. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the accuracy of POP-Q measurements with a priori ranges. Symptom severity was evaluated using the PFDI-20 questionnaire. Analysis of variance was used to model both GCL and CCL as a function of prolapse stage and the leading compartment.
resultsThe final analysis included 202 subjects. Of the CCL measurements, 56.93% were within ±2 cm of GCL, while 36.14% were within ±1 cm. POP stage was significantly associated with GCL (P < 0.0024). CCL was significantly longer in patients with stage 4 POP (3.57 cm, 95% CI 3.13-4.00) than in those with stage 2 POP (P < 0.0017; mean 2.68 cm, 95% CI 2.45-2.92) and stage 3 POP (P < 0.0300; mean 2.94 cm, 95% CI 2.73-3.15). There were no significant correlations between PFDI scores and CCL or GCL.
conclusionsThe agreement between POP-Q CCL (|C - D|) and GCL decreases with increasing POP-Q stage. There was no correlation between POP symptom severity and GCL or CCL. GCL significantly increased with increasing POP stage.
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.