Auwad W, Freeman R M, Swift S
Urogynecology Unit, Directorate of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, PL6 8DH, UK.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004 Sep-Oct;15(5):324-7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-004-1175-3. Epub 2004 May 18.
The authors performed a web-based questionnaire survey of 667 members of the ICS and AUGS to determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) system by members of the professional societies which have advocated its use. Three hundred and eighty (57%) gynecologists responded. This international survey shows that only 40.2% of ICS and AUGS members who responded routinely use the POPQ system in their clinical practice and provides information on the most common reasons for not using it. The results highlight some of the concerns regarding the complex nature of the system and its acceptance and use by specialists worldwide. It also suggests the need for a simplified version of the classification system that is user-friendly and can be adopted by all practitioners.
作者对国际尿控学会（ICS）和美国妇科泌尿学会（AUGS）的667名成员进行了一项基于网络的问卷调查，以确定倡导使用盆腔器官脱垂定量（POPQ）系统的专业学会成员对该系统的当前使用情况。380名（57%）妇科医生做出了回应。这项国际调查显示，在做出回应的ICS和AUGS成员中，只有40.2%的人在临床实践中常规使用POPQ系统，并提供了不使用该系统的最常见原因的信息。结果突出了一些关于该系统的复杂性及其在全球范围内被专家接受和使用的担忧。这也表明需要一个简化版的分类系统，该系统要便于用户使用且能被所有从业者采用。
