Observational studyEthiopian journal of health sciences2020
Comparison of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Systems in Clinical Staging of Iranian Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Observational study in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Erroneous and Incomplete Reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Probiotics in the Treatment of Vulvovaginal Candidiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of manometric results following posterior pericervical repair or level I to III surgical procedures.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse and associated factors among women admitted to gynecology ward at the Hiwot Fana Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Harar, eastern Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic organ prolapse is a common pelvic disorder among women. A standard staging system is needed to carefully evaluate the extent and severity of the disease, and initiate appropriate treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the two methods of standard and simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification systems in clinical staging of Iranian women with pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis observational cross-sectional study was conducted on all women with complaints of seeing or feeling a vaginal lump or bulge and/or a dragging sensation who were presented to a pelvic floor disorders clinic of Imam Khomeini Hospital in Tehran, Iran, from October 2018 to June 2019. All patients were evaluated in terms of pelvic organ prolapse severity and staging using both instruments. Also, length of time needed to complete the questionnaires were calculated. After data collection, the results of pelvic organ prolapse staging and degree of agreement between two examiners were evaluated.
resultsA total of 120 women with mean age of 50.92±13.12 years were evaluated. It was shown that there is an almost perfect agreement (kappa coefficient > 0.8) between standard and simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification systems in all the 3 compartments. Also, there was almost a twofold increase in the time needed to perform standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification (4.16±1.01 minutes) compared to performing simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification (2.12±1.14 minutes) (p=0.03).
conclusionAccording to the results of this study, there is a substantial and almost perfect agreement between standard and simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification systems in clinical staging of Iranian women with pelvic organ prolapse. It seems that using simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system is more applicable in clinical practice for staging of pelvic organ prolapse, with high reliability coefficient.
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.