Stark Diane, Dall Philippa, Abdel-Fattah Mohamed, Hagen Suzanne
Physiotherapy Department, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Jun;21(6):651-6. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1089-1. Epub 2010 Jan 27.
There is no agreed assessment tool for physiotherapists treating pelvic organ prolapse. This study hypothesised that pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) assessment was a feasible measure for use by physiotherapists and tested inter- and intra-rater agreement.
Six physiotherapists and two gynaecologists participated. Women were recruited from uro/gynaecology clinics. Two POP-Q examinations were performed at the first clinic (gynaecologist, physiotherapist 1) and 1 week later (physiotherapist 1, physiotherapist 2). The examination was timed and women completed a short questionnaire. Using weighted kappa, agreement of POP-Q stage was assessed.
Forty-five women were recruited (median age 59, range 32-87 years). Agreement between gynaecologist and physiotherapist was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.63). Weighted kappa was 0.67 for inter-rater agreement between two different physiotherapists and 0.71 for intra-rater reliability for the same physiotherapist. Examination time was significantly shorter (difference 53 +/- 73 s, p < 0.001) for gynaecologists. Participants found the examination acceptable.
POP-Q is a feasible and reliable outcome measure for physiotherapists to use.
对于治疗盆腔器官脱垂的物理治疗师而言，尚无公认的评估工具。本研究假设盆腔器官脱垂量化（POP-Q）评估是物理治疗师可采用的一种可行措施，并测试了评估者间和评估者内的一致性。
六名物理治疗师和两名妇科医生参与研究。从泌尿/妇科诊所招募女性。在第一次诊所就诊时（妇科医生、物理治疗师1）和1周后（物理治疗师1、物理治疗师2）进行两次POP-Q检查。检查记录时间，女性完成一份简短问卷。使用加权kappa系数评估POP-Q分期的一致性。
招募了45名女性（中位年龄59岁，范围32 - 87岁）。妇科医生和物理治疗师之间的一致性较高（加权kappa = 0.63）。两名不同物理治疗师之间的评估者间一致性加权kappa为0.67，同一名物理治疗师的评估者内信度加权kappa为0.71。妇科医生的检查时间明显更短（差异53 ± 73秒，p < 0.001）。参与者认为该检查可以接受。
POP-Q是物理治疗师可采用的一种可行且可靠的结果测量方法。
