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

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

ISSN： 0937-3462

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

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

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

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

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

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