Comparative Study to Evaluate the Intersystem Association and Reliability Between Standard Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) classification system and the simplified pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP) classification system.

Method

This is an observational study, in which 100 subjects, whose average age was 60 ± 10 years, with pelvic floor disorder symptoms underwent two systems of examinations—POPQ classification system and S-POP classification system at Safdarjung hospital—done by four gynecologists (two specialists and two resident doctors) using a prospective randomized study, blinded to each other’s findings. Data were compared using appropriate statistics.

Results

The weighted Kappa statistics for the intersystem reliability of the S-POP classification system compared with standard POPQ classification system were 0.82 for the overall stage: 0.83 and 0.86 for the anterior and posterior vaginal walls respectively; 0.81 for the apex/vaginal cuff; and 0.89 for the cervix. All these results demonstrate significant agreement between the two systems.

Conclusion

There is almost perfect intersystem agreement between the S-POP classification system and the standard POPQ classification system in respect of the overall stage as well as each point within the same system.