SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2025
Erroneous and Incomplete Reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Clinical Significance of Key Pelvic Floor Ultrasound Indicators in POP Management: A Retrospective Study of Diagnostic Accuracy and Therapeutic Intervention.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- To err is human: lessons from prolapse studies to identify and strategies to reduce data errors.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound combined with multiple parameters for predicting stress urinary incontinence in women.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- "The Problem of Recurrent Anterior Wall Prolapse after Supracervical Hysterectomy with Sacrocolpopexy".International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of the internal validity of the Swedish National Quality Register in Gynecological Surgery (GynOp).Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisAccurate 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsErroneous 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39565394What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.