SynthesisBMJ open2025
Evaluating the psychometric measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for uterine fibroids using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the psychometric measurement properties of existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for uterine fibroids using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and to provide recommendations for the most appropriate tools in clinical and research settings.
designSystematic review using the COSMIN guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: The Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies published up to 28 February 2025. Eligibility criteria were studies that targeted patients with uterine fibroids using a PROM instrument and were published as full-text, English-language articles in peer-reviewed journals. Studies that used only a portion or an unvalidated short form of the PROMs, non-English publication or non-peer-reviewed formats were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data using EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate, London, UK). The PROM quality assessment adhered to the COSMIN guidelines. The level of evidence for the psychometric properties of each PROM was determined using a modified GRADE approach.
resultsOf 678 records retrieved in the literature search, 11 were included. Six uterine fibroid-specific PROMs were identified and evaluated according to the COSMIN guidelines. The Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QoL) and the Bleeding and Pelvic Discomfort Scale (BPD) received class A recommendations (recommended) for sufficient content and structural and internal consistency. However, four other PROMs, namely the Perioperative Anxiety Scale for Uterine Fibroids, Fibroid Symptom Diary, Uterine Fibroid Daily Bleeding Diary and Menstrual Pictogram Superabsorbent Polymer-containing Version 3, received class B recommendations (further research required) due to poor measurement properties, including inadequate reliability and unquantified measurement error.
conclusionThe results of the present study fill a knowledge gap in the systematic and comprehensive evaluation of uterine fibroid-related PROMs. These findings provide valuable insights and recommendations for clinicians and researchers seeking reliable PROMs for this patient population. The UFS-QoL and BPD were classified as 'A' and were recommended, demonstrating the potential to promote outcome measurements in future studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023474806.
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.