IntroductionWe assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality.MethodsWe searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1–5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1–6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables.ResultsEighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = −0.013; P = 0.918).ConclusionsAnterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues.

Developing @coreoutcomes for childbirth trauma research could help to reduce #research waste.

The use of synthetic mesh in pelvic organ prolapse surgery is being closely scrutinized because of serious concerns regarding life‐changing complications such as erosion, pain, infection, bleeding, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and urinary problems. Randomized trials and their syntheses in meta‐analysis offer a unique opportunity to assess efficacy and safety. However, outcomes and outcome measures need to be consistently selected, collected, and reported across randomized trials to be effectively combined in systematic reviews. Aims We evaluated outcome and outcome measure reporting across randomized controlled trials on surgical interventions using synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Methods Systematic review of randomized controlled trials using synthetic mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The selected studies were evaluated using Jadad and MOMENT criteria. Outcomes and outcome measures were systematically identified and categorized. Results Seventy‐one randomized trials were included. Twenty‐four different types of mesh were identified. Included trials reported 110 different outcomes and 60 outcome measures. Erosion (40 trials, 78%), pain (29 trials, 56%), bleeding (31 trials, 61%), and dyspareunia (25 trials, 49%) were the most frequently reported outcomes. The longest follow up was 74 months. Conclusions Most randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions using synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse failed to report on clinically important outcomes and to evaluate efficacy and safety over the medium‐ and long‐term. Developing and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, in future vaginal prolapse trials could help address these issues.

Background Several meta-analyses have identified methodological limitations in female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) trials, precluding the synthesis of primary studies and high-quality evidence.Objectives Evaluation of outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on surgery for SUI.Search strategy Systematic review of RCTs identified from bibliographical databases, including Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE.Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of surgical interventions for the management of female SUI.Data collection and analysis Two researchers independently assessed the included studies and documented outcomes.Main results Overall, 108 studies were identified that included 422 reported outcomes and 119 outcome measures. The three most common outcomes were cure rates (87 studies), quality of life (85 studies), and overactive bladder (78 studies). The median methodological quality rating was 3 (range 0-3) and the outcome reporting quality rating was 3 (range 0-5). Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the methodological quality and use of validated questionnaire were significant predictors of the quality of outcome reporting (b = 0.538, P < 0.001; b = 0.218, P = 0.011, respectively).Conclusions Outcome reporting in SUI trials is highly variable. Until a core outcome set is developed and implemented, we propose an interim use of three commonly reported outcomes in each domain (treatment success ratecomplete cure, partial improvement, or failure of response; urodynamic evaluation outcomesoveractive bladder (OAB), voiding dysfunction, and urodynamic stress incontinence; patient-reported outcomesquality of life, sexual dysfunction, and patient satisfaction) with the use of validated questionnaires for patient-reported outcomes and subjective success rates. Complications should be also explicitly and comprehensively reported using validated outcome measures.

Background Evidence on efficacy and safety of pelvic organ prolapse interventions is variable, and methodological flaws preclude meaningful synthesis of primary research data. Objective To evaluate variations in reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on apical prolapse surgical interventions. Search strategy We searched Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus for English‐language articles published from inception to September 30, 2017, using the terms “management”, “repair”, “operation”, and “pelvic organ prolapse”. Selection criteria RCTs on apical prolapse surgical treatment. Data collection and analysis Outcomes and outcome measures were identified and categorized into domains. Studies were evaluated for quality of outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate frequencies. Main results Forty‐three RCTs were included. Seventy‐six outcomes and 66 outcome measures were identified. Bladder and ureteric injury were the most commonly reported intraoperative complications (19/31 studies; 61%). Quality of life was assessed by 19 different instruments and questionnaires. Fourteen (45%) of 31 studies used recurrence of prolapse as a postoperative anatomical outcome. Conclusions Substantial variation in reported outcomes and outcome measures was confirmed, precluding comparisons across trials and synthesis of the results. Development of a core outcome set will enable high‐quality meta‐analyses to be performed in the future. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017062456.

Background: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets. Objective: To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials. Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Selection criteria: Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse.Data collection and analysis: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated.

ObjectiveThere are numerous studies reporting a disproportionally high prevalence of thrombophilia in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage (RM), which has led to overdiagnosis and treatment without an improvement in clinical outcomes. The objective of our study was to assess the prevalence of inherited and acquired thrombophilia in a large cohort of women with a history of early RM using internationally agreed diagnostic criteria and inclusion parameters and compare it to the meta-analysis results of existing literature.MethodsDesignRetrospective cohort study and systematic review of literature.SettingThis is a retrospective cohort study set-up in two dedicated tertiary centres for women with RM in Southwest London and Surrey. We reviewed all the available literature related to causes of RMs. We ascertained the prevalence of thrombophilia in the study population and compared it with historical and published prevalence in the general population.Participants1155 women between 2012 and 2017. All patients had three or more first trimester miscarriages and a full thrombophilia screen.ResultsThe overall prevalence of thrombophilia in our study population is 9.2% (106/1155) with 8.1% (94/1155) of cases positive for inherited thrombophilia, which is similar to the general population; Factor V Leiden (4.9%; 57/1155) and prothrombin gene mutation (2.9%; 34/1155) were the most common inherited thrombophilias, while only 1% (12/1155) tested positive for acquired thrombophilia. Persistent positive lupus anticoagulant (LA) was found in 0.5% (6/1155) and persistent positive anticardiolipin (ACL) antibodies with a value ≥40 U/mL was found in 0.5% (6/1155) of patients. Tests for LA/ACL were performed a minimum of 12 weeks apart thus meeting the revised Sapporo criteria for a diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome.ConclusionThe findings of our study demonstrate that the prevalence of inherited thrombophilia is similar in women with RM to that in the general population. Similarly, the prevalence of acquired thrombophilia, using the revised Sapporo criteria, in the cohort of RMs is similar to that in the general population. Therefore, we do not recommend investigation or treatment of inherited or acquired thrombophilia in women with RM.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020223554.

No abstract