“Eyeball” POP-Q examination: shortcut or valid assessment tool?

Author： Karp Deborah Peterson Thais Jean-Michel Marjorie Lefevre Roger Davila G. Aguilar Vivian

ISSN： 0937-3462

Source： International Urogynecology Journal, Vol.21, Iss.8, 2010-08, pp. : 1005-1009

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Related content

Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length

By Dancz Christina Werth Lisa Sun Vanessa Lee Sandy Walker Daphne Özel Begüm

International Urogynecology Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, 2014-04 ,pp. : 457-464

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

POP-Q 2.0: its time has come!

By Harmanli Oz

International Urogynecology Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, 2014-04 ,pp. : 447-449

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

The POP-Q system: two decades of progress and debate

By Bump Richard

International Urogynecology Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, 2014-04 ,pp. : 441-443

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Point Aa of the POP-Q system as a predictive value of urethral mobility in women

By Kim Sun-Ouck Chung Ho Hwang Eu Oh Kyung Kwon Dongdeuk

International Urogynecology Journal, Vol. 22, Iss. 6, 2011-06 ,pp. : 687-691

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

The POP-Q classification system: looking back and looking forward

By Riss Paul Dwyer Peter

International Urogynecology Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, 2014-04 ,pp. : 439-440

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite