{"title":"Erroneous and Incomplete Reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.","authors":"Melissa M Younes, Mooska Raoofi, Marcus Carey","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05988-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Accurate and complete reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system is essential for reporting research outcomes in POP. We aimed to assess the accuracy and completeness of POP-Q reporting in studies published from selected journals in 2023 and evaluate the validity of available POP-Q calculators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of Medline and Embase was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify eligible studies from selected journals in 2023 that utilised the POP-Q system. An assessment of available POP-Q calculators was also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 134 studies identified, 18 (13.4%) met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies reported complete quantitative POP-Q data of which 9 (75%) contained identifiable POP-Q reporting errors. These included 5 studies reporting mean Aa > Ba, 2 reporting mean Ap > Bp, 6 reporting C > Bp, 5 reporting mean C > Ba, 1 reporting mean Aa > + 3, and 1 reporting mean D > C. The remaining 6 of the 18 studies reported incomplete POP-Q measurements, which restricted our ability to identify further reporting errors, except for 2 studies reporting C > Ba and C > Bp respectively. The evaluated POP-Q calculator permitted the input of inaccurate POP-Q data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Erroneous and/or incomplete quantitative POP-Q data were identified in 15 of the 18 studies reviewed (83.3%). Our findings highlight the need for improved POP-Q data reporting. Journal editors and reviewers should ensure that publications provide complete and accurate quantitative POP-Q data. POP-Q calculators should be based on algorithms that ensure complete and accurate data inputs and outputs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05988-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: Accurate and complete reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system is essential for reporting research outcomes in POP. We aimed to assess the accuracy and completeness of POP-Q reporting in studies published from selected journals in 2023 and evaluate the validity of available POP-Q calculators.
Methods: A systematic search of Medline and Embase was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify eligible studies from selected journals in 2023 that utilised the POP-Q system. An assessment of available POP-Q calculators was also performed.
Results: Of the 134 studies identified, 18 (13.4%) met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies reported complete quantitative POP-Q data of which 9 (75%) contained identifiable POP-Q reporting errors. These included 5 studies reporting mean Aa > Ba, 2 reporting mean Ap > Bp, 6 reporting C > Bp, 5 reporting mean C > Ba, 1 reporting mean Aa > + 3, and 1 reporting mean D > C. The remaining 6 of the 18 studies reported incomplete POP-Q measurements, which restricted our ability to identify further reporting errors, except for 2 studies reporting C > Ba and C > Bp respectively. The evaluated POP-Q calculator permitted the input of inaccurate POP-Q data.
Conclusions: Erroneous and/or incomplete quantitative POP-Q data were identified in 15 of the 18 studies reviewed (83.3%). Our findings highlight the need for improved POP-Q data reporting. Journal editors and reviewers should ensure that publications provide complete and accurate quantitative POP-Q data. POP-Q calculators should be based on algorithms that ensure complete and accurate data inputs and outputs.
期刊介绍：
The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
