Trial reportInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Multicompartmental prolapse: A comparative study between clinical examination and ultrasound.
Trial report in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe accurate diagnosis of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is fundamental to surgical success. This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of transperineal ultrasound against clinical examination (pelvic organ prolapse quantification, POP-Q) for the detection of compartmental defects in patients with multicompartment POP, using assessment under spinal anesthesia as the reference standard.
methodA prospective randomized diagnostic accuracy study was designed, including 129 patients scheduled for multicompartment POP surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either a preoperative POP-Q two-dimensional transperineal ultrasound assessment. The reference standard for all patients was the intraoperative POP-Q assessment, conducted under spinal anesthesia immediately before surgery. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for each method and compartment.
resultsBoth techniques demonstrated high sensitivity for the diagnosis of cystocele (100% vs 98.3%). However, their performance varied across the other compartments. Ultrasound showed superior specificity for uterine prolapse (73.4% vs 45.4%) and rectocele (86.3% vs 66.0%) and was particularly robust in confirming enterocele (LR+ of 10.5). In turn, clinical examination had a higher sensitivity for detecting rectocele (61.5% vs 21.4%) and was highly reliable for ruling out cystocele and uterine prolapse (LR- of 0).
conclusionClinical examination and ultrasound are complementary in the diagnosis of prolapse. Their combined use is key to accurate surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.