A systematic review on reporting outcomes and outcome measures in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: Urgent action is needed to improve quality of research

Abstract

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.

Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair – a systematic review of the literature

“…Since April 16, 2019, there have been no FDA‐approved surgical mesh products for transvaginal repair marketed for use in the United States. POP procedures using synthetic mesh require additional attention because of possible complications . According to Biler et al, 1‐year follow‐up time can be too short for the development of mesh erosion.…”

Role of endoscopic management in synthetic sling/mesh erosion following previous incontinence surgery: a systematic review from European Association of Urologists Young Academic Urologists (YAU) and Uro-technology (ESUT) groups

“…A recent study looked at the reporting outcome measures in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for POP and concluded that urgent action is needed to improve the quality of research in this field [32]. Of the 71 randomized trials, 24 different types of mesh were identified.…”

A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of qualitative studies on pelvic organ prolapse for the development of core outcome sets

“…The impact on individual patients but also on clinical practice and research is therefore highly variable. Wide variations of reported outcomes and outcome measures in POP research have also been documented 14,15 . One of the consequences is a failure to acquire high‐quality data, affecting the quality of available evidence, and clinical guidance and practice.…”