ArticleBMC women's health2021
Current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in clinical practice among Korean obstetrician-gynecologists.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. 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.
- Assessment of Different Pubococcygeal Lines for the Quantitative Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Magnetic Resonance Defecography.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Clinical application of a fixed reference line in the ultrasound quantitative diagnosis of female pelvic organ prolapse.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Article
- Anatomic Criterion for Clinically Relevant Apical Prolapse in Urogynecology Populations.Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
- Current techniques used to perform surgery for anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse in South Korea.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess current use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system in clinical practice among Korean obstetrician-gynecologists.
methodsA web-based questionnaire was sent to 780 Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology members. The items evaluated in the questionnaire were demographic characteristics and current use of the POP-Q system in the evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and surgical decision-making. Differences between POP-Q users and nonusers were analyzed by using the two-sample t-test and chi-squared test.
resultsOne hundred twenty-six members (16%) responded to the survey. Of the respondents, 48% reported using the POP-Q system in the evaluation of POP. Members who were female, urogynecologists, or performed a high volume of prolapse surgery were more likely to use the POP-Q system (p < 0.05). All but one of the POP-Q users reported using the specific criteria to determine whether each compartmental prolapse should be corrected during prolapse surgery. Most respondents used stage 2 or the hymen as a threshold for prolapse to be corrected for all compartments.
conclusionsLess than half of Korean obstetrician-gynecologists use the POP-Q system in the evaluation of POP. Almost all of POP-Q users make a surgical decision based on the results of the POP-Q examination.
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.