Sara Cichowski1, Magdalena Emilia Grzybowska2, Gabriela E Halder3, Sierra Jansen4, Daniela Gold5, Montserrat Espuña6, Swati Jha7, Ahmed Al-Badr8, Abdelmageed Abdelrahman9, Rebecca G Rogers10. 1. Oregon Health & Sciences, Portland, OR, USA. cichowss@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland. 3. University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA. 4. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 5. Department of Gynecology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. 6. Departamento Gynaecology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS trust, Sheffield, UK. 8. King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 9. Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. 10. Albany Med, Albany, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient-reported outcome measure instruments include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported goals (PRGs), which allow practitioners to measure symptoms and determine outcomes of treatment that matter to patients. METHODS: This is a structured review completed by the International Urogynecology Consultation (IUC), sponsored by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). The aim of this working group was to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence for PROs and PRGs in the initial clinical work-up/evaluation and research arena for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). RESULTS: The initial search generated 3589 non-duplicated studies. After abstract review by 4 authors, 211 full texts were assessed for eligibility by 2 writing group members, and 199 studies were reviewed in detail. Any disagreements on abstract or full-text articles were resolved by a third reviewer or during video meetings as a group. The list of POP PROs and information on PRGs was developed from these articles. Tables were generated to describe the validation of each PRO and to provide currently available, validated translations. CONCLUSIONS: All patients presenting for POP should be evaluated for vaginal, bladder, bowel and sexual symptoms including their goals for symptom treatment. This screening can be facilitated by a validated PRO; however, most PROs provide more information than needed to provide clinical care and were designed for research purposes.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient-reported outcome measure instruments include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported goals (PRGs), which allow practitioners to measure symptoms and determine outcomes of treatment that matter to patients. METHODS: This is a structured review completed by the International Urogynecology Consultation (IUC), sponsored by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). The aim of this working group was to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence for PROs and PRGs in the initial clinical work-up/evaluation and research arena for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). RESULTS: The initial search generated 3589 non-duplicated studies. After abstract review by 4 authors, 211 full texts were assessed for eligibility by 2 writing group members, and 199 studies were reviewed in detail. Any disagreements on abstract or full-text articles were resolved by a third reviewer or during video meetings as a group. The list of POP PROs and information on PRGs was developed from these articles. Tables were generated to describe the validation of each PRO and to provide currently available, validated translations. CONCLUSIONS: All patients presenting for POP should be evaluated for vaginal, bladder, bowel and sexual symptoms including their goals for symptom treatment. This screening can be facilitated by a validated PRO; however, most PROs provide more information than needed to provide clinical care and were designed for research purposes.
Authors: Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Eman A Elkadry; Kimberly S Kenton; Mary P FitzGerald; Susan Shott; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.661