SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perforator Versus Non-perforator Flap for Perineal Reconstruction: Long-Term Comparison of Complications and Quality of Life.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Multidimensional assessment of urinary dysfunction and quality of life after cervical cancer treatment: a multicenter study integrating urodynamics and patient-reported outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.
methodsBy systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.
resultsThe primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.
conclusionFar too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.