Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927040›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2019

Patient-reported outcome measures which assess body image in urogynaecology patients: a systematic review.

Thomas G Gray, Rosanna Sneyd, Kaia Scurr, Georgina L Jones, David Iles, Swati Jha, Stephen C Radley

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Body image and sexual function improve following prolapse repair.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas G GrayDepartment of urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK. Thomas.Gray@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-4366
Rosanna SneydDepartment of urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.
Kaia ScurrUniversity Department of obstetrics and gynaecology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Georgina L JonesHealth Psychology, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
David IlesWarrell Unit, Manchester, UK.
Swati JhaDepartment of urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.
Stephen C RadleyDepartment of urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, c/o Tricia Kenyon, Level 4, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimUrogynaecological conditions can have a significant impact on body image. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in urogynaecology to assess symptoms and their impact on quality of life. This systematic review aimed to identify currently available PROMs used to assess body image within a urogynaecological population and to identify the most psychometrically robust and appropriate PROM tools to use in this context.

methodsOvid Medline, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from January 1966 to November 2018 to identify studies that had administered a PROM to assess body image to patients diagnosed with a urogynaecological condition. The information extracted and critically appraised included study setting, PROM instrument used and the reported psychometric properties of the PROM.

resultsSeventeen studies were included from 3207 screened articles. Seven different PROMs used to assess body image in a urogynaecological population were identified. Two of these PROMs (Genital Self-Image Scale-20 and Body Image in Pelvic Organ Prolapse questionnaire) had good psychometric evidence for use, but this was only in the context of women with prolapse. Evidence for validity and reliability was limited for the other five PROMs identified.

conclusionFurther development and psychometric testing of PROMs to assess body image in urogynaecology, for both research purposes and clinical practice, are required. Further research is also required to investigate the relationship between body image and urogynaecological symptomatology, and developing valid, reliable and functional PROMs will be integral to this.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresBody ImageFemaleGynecologyHumansQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsUrologyBody imagePatient report outcome measuresSurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.