Objective:

To determine the diagnostic yield of radiologic studies (dynamic magnetic resonance imaging, and 2D/3D ultrasound), compared with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) classification system, for identifying genital prolapse.

Methods:

Clinical experiments, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies were included to evaluate dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and 2D/3D ultrasound as the diagnostic tests, and the POP-Q classification system as the reference standard. A search strategy was carried out, up to the present date, in each of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS, as well as in the grey literature. The data were then extracted and the risk for bias was evaluated through the QUADAS-2 tool, resulting in the present meta-analysis.

Results:

Once the information from the 2,227 studies evaluated was filtered, four articles were selected that met the inclusion criteria, two of which were included in the meta-analysis. From the data reported, we found a moderate-to-high correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and the POP-Q, for quantifying genital prolapse, in relation to the anterior and middle compartment measurements, with the following effect sizes: 0.60 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.03) for the pubococcygeal line; 0.63 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.98) for the H line; and 0.70 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) for the midpubic line.

Conclusions:

Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal 2D/3D ultrasound can be used as diagnostic methods for genital organ prolapse, especially anterior compartment prolapse.