Scholarlink

Introduction and Hypothesis <p>This section of Chapter 2.2 of the International Urogynecology Consultation on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), reviews the literature on the role of imaging in the diagnosis of POP.</p> Methods <p>An international group of nine urogynecologists and one university-based medical librarian adhered to the framework of the scoping review. The group performed a search of the literature using pre-specified search terms in Scopus, OVID Medline, and PubMed. Publications were eliminated if not relevant to the diagnostic value of POP imaging. The remaining articles were evaluated for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. The resulting list of articles was used to perform a comprehensive narrative review of the diagnostic value of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of POP.</p> Results <p>The original search yielded 3,289 references, 135 of which were used by the writing group.</p> Conclusions <p>Most imaging studies utilized in the diagnoses of POP lacked standardization in the definition of POP. Most imaging studies lack standardization in the protocols used to diagnose POP within each imaging technique. Ultrasound- and MRI-related studies are most represented in the literature, compared with fewer CT- and X-ray-/fluoroscopy-related studies. Therefore, radiographic imaging is of limited value in the diagnosis of POP.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

International Urogynecological Consultation Chapter 2.2: Imaging in the Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月26日

查看全文
  • Lioudmila Lipetskaia,
  • Ankita Gupta,
  • Rachel Y. K. Cheung,
  • Vik Khullar,
  • Sharif Ismail,
  • Megan Bradley,
  • Roopali Karmakar,
  • Shari Clifton,
  • Josephine Doo,
  • Lieschen Quiroz

摘要

Introduction and Hypothesis

This section of Chapter 2.2 of the International Urogynecology Consultation on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), reviews the literature on the role of imaging in the diagnosis of POP.

Methods

An international group of nine urogynecologists and one university-based medical librarian adhered to the framework of the scoping review. The group performed a search of the literature using pre-specified search terms in Scopus, OVID Medline, and PubMed. Publications were eliminated if not relevant to the diagnostic value of POP imaging. The remaining articles were evaluated for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. The resulting list of articles was used to perform a comprehensive narrative review of the diagnostic value of imaging modalities for the diagnosis of POP.

Results

The original search yielded 3,289 references, 135 of which were used by the writing group.

Conclusions

Most imaging studies utilized in the diagnoses of POP lacked standardization in the definition of POP. Most imaging studies lack standardization in the protocols used to diagnose POP within each imaging technique. Ultrasound- and MRI-related studies are most represented in the literature, compared with fewer CT- and X-ray-/fluoroscopy-related studies. Therefore, radiographic imaging is of limited value in the diagnosis of POP.