The FIGO assessment scoring system (FASS): a new holistic classification tool to assess women with pelvic floor dysfunction: validity and reliability

G. Alessandro Digesu, Steven Swift, Federica Puccini, Jittima Manonai, Vik Khullar, Ruwan Fernando, Oscar Contreras Ortiz, Stefano Salvatore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The aim of our study was to assess the interobserver and intraobserver reliability as well as the content and construct validity of the FIGO prolapse assessment scoring system (FASS). Methods: Women with and without (controls) symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) attending gynaecology outpatient clinics in four different countries were recruited prospectively. Each woman was assessed using the FASS which included: (1) physical examination findings designated with the letter P; (2) presence of symptoms of prolapse, urinary and bowel symptoms designated with the letter S; and (3) assessment of degree of bother designated with the letter B. A scoring system was also developed. For interobserver reliability women were examined by two separate examiners using the FASS. For intraobserver reliability the FASS was repeated by the same examiner within 2 weeks. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was also calculated to assess limits of agreements. Validity was assessed by comparing the FASS scores between symptomatic and asymptomatic women using the Mann-Whitney U test (p value

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)859-864
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 13 2015

Keywords

  • Pelvic floor dysfunction
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Reliability
  • Scoring system
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The FIGO assessment scoring system (FASS): a new holistic classification tool to assess women with pelvic floor dysfunction: validity and reliability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this