Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34143238›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021

Patient-reported outcomes and outcome measures in childbirth perineal trauma research: a systematic review.

Stergios K Doumouchtsis, Jemina Loganathan, John Fahmy, Gabriele Falconi, Maria Rada, Abdullatif Elfituri, Jorge Milhem Haddad, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Cornelia Betschart, CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Stergios K DoumouchtsisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0404-6335
Jemina LoganathanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, UK. jemina.loganathan@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-1138-8875
John FahmySt George's University of London, London, UK.
Gabriele FalconiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.
Maria Rada2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, "Iuliu Hatieganu", University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Abdullatif ElfituriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, UK.
Jorge Milhem HaddadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Butanta, Brazil.
Vasilios PergialiotisFirst Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandra Hospital, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Cornelia BetschartDepartment of Gynecology, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisIn 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsSignificant 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.

Indexed as

ParturitionPerineumDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPregnancyChildbirth traumaCore outcome setsPatient-reported outcomesPerineal injuryPerineal trauma

Identifiers

PMID34143238

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.