Re. DeLancey, J., Is POP-Q II now overdue?

Hans Peter Dietz; Ka Lai Shek

doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001690

Re. DeLancey, J., Is POP-Q II now overdue?

Hans Peter Dietz, Ka Lai Shek

Western Sydney University

Sydney Urodynamic Centres

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

We agree that POP-Q stage definitions are not evidence based but doubt whether the proposed IUC definition is optimal, given currently available data.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	643-644
Number of pages	2
Journal	Urogynecology
Volume	31
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001690
Publication status	Published - Jun 2025

Access to Document

10.1097/SPV.0000000000001690

Cite this

@article{f850f4175229449ba144b3e606eb83e9,

title = "Re. DeLancey, J., Is POP-Q II now overdue?",

abstract = "We agree that POP-Q stage definitions are not evidence based but doubt whether the proposed IUC definition is optimal, given currently available data.",

author = "Dietz, {Hans Peter} and Shek, {Ka Lai}",

year = "2025",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1097/SPV.0000000000001690",

language = "English",

volume = "31",

pages = "643--644",

journal = "Urogynecology",

issn = "2771-1897",