Abstract
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.