Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse.
3D transperineal ultrasound
Cervical elongation
Pelvic organ prolapse
Uterine prolapse
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
22
03
2021
accepted:
13
08
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
20
9
2022
entrez:
7
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our study aims to determine the interobserver variability of different ultrasound measurements (pubis-cervix distance, pubis-uterine fundus distance, and pubis-Douglascul-de-sac distance) previously analyzed for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation CE without UP. We conducted a prospective observational study with 40 patients scheduled to undergo surgical correction of UP and CE without UP. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound examination by an examiner (E1) who acquired ultrasound images. Using these images, E1 measured the distances for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP, and these distances were compared with those measured by the other examiner (E2). Values were analyzed by calculating ICCs with 95% CIs. For UP, excellent reliability was obtained for all measurements except the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was moderate (ICC 0.596; p = 0.028) and for the difference between the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver, which was good (ICC 0.691; p < 0.0005). For CE without UP, interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements analyzed except the pubis-cervix measurement during the Valsalva maneuver, which was moderate (ICC 0.535; p = 0.052) and for the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was good (ICC 0.768; p < 0.0005). There is excellent interobserver reliability in measurements of the difference in the distance from the pubic symphysis to the uterine fundus at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver for both UP and CE without UP, which are used for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34618192
doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04980-y
pii: 10.1007/s00192-021-04980-y
pmc: PMC9477898
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2825-2831Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;23(1):80-92
pubmed: 14971006
J Urol. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):1014-20
pubmed: 26523882
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;25(6):580-5
pubmed: 15883982
Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Dec;26(12):1783-7
pubmed: 26174659
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;116(4):926-931
pubmed: 20859157
Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(1):68-73
pubmed: 18932174
Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167-78
pubmed: 11857671
Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Aug;32(8):2219-2225
pubmed: 33484288
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Feb;19(2):227-35
pubmed: 17599234
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;39(6):710-4
pubmed: 22125257
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Jun 1;122(3):368-400
pubmed: 1093411
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1059):20150704
pubmed: 26800394
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Dec;54(6):553-7
pubmed: 25338743
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6
pubmed: 9083302
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Aug;33(16):2805-2811
pubmed: 30563391
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;26(1):73-7
pubmed: 15973648
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996;7(3):121-4
pubmed: 8913828
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7
pubmed: 8694033
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;42(5):590-5
pubmed: 23729398
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Mar;41(3):312-7
pubmed: 22605574
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;191(5):1533-8
pubmed: 15547521
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;33(5):567-73
pubmed: 19402120
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;29(6):688-91
pubmed: 17471449
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;36(5):618-23
pubmed: 20578141