These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is the hymen a suitable cut-off point for clinically relevant pelvic organ prolapse?
    Author: Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Dekker JH.
    Journal: Maturitas; 2017 May; 99():86-91. PubMed ID: 28364874.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the ability of different anatomic cut-off points, as established in specialist urogynecology populations, to identify clinically relevant prolapse in a population of postmenopausal women with pelvic floor symptoms recruited from primary care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study among 890 women (≥55 years) screened for pelvic floor symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 was used to measure symptoms, and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system was used to assess prolapse. Areas under the curves, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for the hymen as a cut-off point for symptomatic prolapse of the anterior and posterior vaginal wall. For the apical compartment, a cut-off point of -5cm relative to the hymen was used. RESULTS: Vaginal bulging was the only symptom reported more often with increasing POP-Q stages. Areas under the curves (95% confidence intervals) to discriminate between women with and without vaginal bulging symptoms were 0.66 (0.61-0.72), 0.56 (0.50-0.63), and 0.61 (0.55-0.66) for the anterior (Ba), posterior (Bp) and apical (C) compartment, respectively. When the hymen was used as the cut-off point, Ba had a sensitivity of 38.1% and a specificity of 82.4%, and Bp had a sensitivity of 13.3% and a specificity of 96.5%. For C, the cut-off point of -5cm relative to the hymen had a sensitivity of 37.9% and a specificity of 73.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomic cut-off points for clinically relevant prolapse established in the specialist urogynecology population cannot adequately identify symptomatic prolapse in a population of postmenopausal women with pelvic floor symptoms recruited from primary care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]