International urogynecology journal · 2021
Patient-reported outcomes and outcome measures in childbirth perineal trauma research: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doumouchtsis Stergios K, Loganathan Jemina, Fahmy John, Falconi Gabriele, Rada Maria, Elfituri Abdullatif, Haddad Jorge Milhem, Pergialiotis Vasilios, Betschart Cornelia, CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in perineal trauma research, outcomes reported by patients should have a prominent focus. There is no international consensus regarding the use of either patient-reported outcomes (PROs) or tools used to determine these outcomes (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs). The objective was to evaluate the selection, reporting and geographical variations of PROs and PROMs in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on perineal trauma.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of RCTs in perineal trauma research evaluating outcome and outcome measure reporting. We identified PROs and PROMs and grouped PROs into domains and themes, a classification system based on a medical outcome taxonomy.
RESULTS: Of 48 included RCTs, 47 reported PROs. In total, we identified 51 PROs. Outcome reporting consistency was low, with 27 PROs reported only once. Nine PROs were reported more than five times, the most frequent being perineal pain, with no geographical variation in reporting. Four themes encompassing 12 domains were identified. The most frequently reported theme was "Clinical", with 25 PROs grouped within four domains. "Resource use" and "Adverse events" themes were rarely reported, with only five PROs. PROMs also exhibited variation. Most common were visual analogue scale (VAS; 100 mm), Cleveland Clinic Continence Score, The Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale, VAS (0-10) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity in PROs and PROMs was observed among RCTs. Despite inconsistency, PROs are the most prevalent outcome in perineal trauma research. Patient-reported adverse events are underreported. Their use in determining the effectiveness and safety of interventions makes their integration important in perineal trauma core outcome sets. Identification and grouping of outcomes will assist future core outcome consensus studies.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of RCTs in perineal trauma research evaluating outcome and outcome measure reporting. We identified PROs and PROMs and grouped PROs into domains and themes, a classification system based on a medical outcome taxonomy.
RESULTS: Of 48 included RCTs, 47 reported PROs. In total, we identified 51 PROs. Outcome reporting consistency was low, with 27 PROs reported only once. Nine PROs were reported more than five times, the most frequent being perineal pain, with no geographical variation in reporting. Four themes encompassing 12 domains were identified. The most frequently reported theme was "Clinical", with 25 PROs grouped within four domains. "Resource use" and "Adverse events" themes were rarely reported, with only five PROs. PROMs also exhibited variation. Most common were visual analogue scale (VAS; 100 mm), Cleveland Clinic Continence Score, The Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale, VAS (0-10) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity in PROs and PROMs was observed among RCTs. Despite inconsistency, PROs are the most prevalent outcome in perineal trauma research. Patient-reported adverse events are underreported. Their use in determining the effectiveness and safety of interventions makes their integration important in perineal trauma core outcome sets. Identification and grouping of outcomes will assist future core outcome consensus studies.