Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42261467›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026

The Clinical Significance of Key Pelvic Floor Ultrasound Indicators in POP Management: A Retrospective Study of Diagnostic Accuracy and Therapeutic Intervention.

Jiali Wang, Huimin Zhang, Menglin Zhu, Tianlan Liu, Jie Yan, Chengyu Shui, Hui Xu, Rong Ni, Li Qin, Qingxiu Ai and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jiali Wang *Department of Ultrasound, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Huimin Zhang *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0006-4285-6095
Menglin ZhuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Tianlan LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Jie YanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Chengyu ShuiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Hui XuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Rong NiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Li QinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Qingxiu AiDepartment of Ultrasound, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Bo WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi Clinical College of Wuhan University, Enshi, Hubei, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To explore the clinical significance of key pelvic floor ultrasound indicators in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study aims to address the limitations of the subjective POP-Q system and the costly static MRI, optimize objective evaluation metrics, and construct an effective POP risk prediction model. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 110 patients with POP or lower urinary tract symptoms. All participants underwent POP-Q assessment and 3D pelvic floor ultrasonography. Following 1:1 age-matched propensity score matching (PSM), Lasso regression was employed to screen variables and establish the POP\u index model. Model efficacy was validated through area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and decision curve analysis. Results: Eighty-four participants were included after matching. In the POP group, the levator hiatus area was significantly larger, and both bladder neck mobility and rectal prolapse rate were higher (both p<0.001). Seven core ultrasound indicators were identified. The POP\U index demonstrated excellent diagnostic efficiency, with an AUC of 0.94, and both sensitivity and specificity at 0.88, yielding an ideal clinical net benefit. Conclusion: Pelvic floor ultrasound, combined with PSM and machine learning, enables accurate POP assessment. The prediction model and ultrasound indicators provide an objective basis for clinical diagnosis and risk stratification, facilitating individualized intervention and primary-level POP screening.

Indexed as

LASSO regressionpelvic floor ultrasoundpelvic organ prolapsepelvic organ prolapse quantificationPOP_Indexpropensity score matchingrisk prediction model

Identifiers

PMID42261467
PMCPMC13242850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.