Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review Using the COnsensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Checklist

Overview

Journal BJOG

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Oct 4

PMID 39363488

Authors

Sarah J Conrad

Stephanie Bernard

Douglas P Gross

Linda McLean

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended to measure the impact of a health condition or intervention effectiveness as they aim to capture what is most meaningful to patients. Several PROMs are used to evaluate pelvic organ prolapse (POP)-related domains, yet the measurement properties of these instruments have not been fully explored with a rigorous analysis of the methodological quality and quality of evidence.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review reporting on the measurement properties of PROMs used for the assessment of POP-related domains in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines.

Search Strategy: Five databases were searched from inception to December 2023.

Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they involved (1) at least one group of female adults diagnosed with or presenting with symptoms of POP; (2) a self-reported outcome measure (PROMs, questionnaires) to evaluate POP-related domains; and (3) at least one measurement property.

Data Collection And Analysis: Methodological quality and measurement quality were assessed using the COSMIN risk of bias (ROB) checklist and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

Main Results: A total of 13 PROMs were included. The BIPOP had the lowest ROB for Content Validity. The POP-SS was the only PROM with sufficient evidence of adequate construct validity and responsiveness to be used in both surgical and conservative management settings.

Conclusion: This original work identified a gap in evidence regarding the measurement qualities of identified PROMs used in the POP population.

References

Mokkink L, Terwee C, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, Riphagen I . Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(3):313-33. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9. View

Cichowski S, Grzybowska M, Halder G, Jansen S, Gold D, Espuna M . International Urogynecology Consultation: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROs) use in the evaluation of patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(10):2603-2631. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05315-1. View

Dieter A, Halder G, Pennycuff J, Singh R, El-Nashar S, Lipetskaia L . Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review. Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 141(6):1098-1114. PMC: 10524573. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005212. View

Baessler K, Mowat A, Maher C . The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 30(1):115-122. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3724-1. View

Bradshaw H, Hiller L, Farkas A, Radley S, Radley S . Development and psychometric testing of a symptom index for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 26(3):241-52. DOI: 10.1080/01443610500537989. View

Mokkink L, Terwee C, Knol D, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D . The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10:22. PMC: 2848183. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22. View

Brown H, Hegde A, Huebner M, Neels H, Barnes H, Marquini G . International urogynecology consultation chapter 1 committee 2: Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence, incidence, natural history, and service needs. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(2):173-187. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-05018-z. View

Price N, Jackson S, Avery K, Brookes S, Abrams P . Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG. 2006; 113(6):700-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00938.x. View

Gray T, Vickers H, Krishnaswamy P, Jha S . A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(8):2033-2092. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1. View

10.

Collins S, OShea M, Dykes N, Ramm O, Edenfield A, Shek K . International Urogynecological Consultation: clinical definition of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(8):2011-2019. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04875-y. View

11.

Lowder J, Ghetti C, Oliphant S, Skoczylas L, Swift S, Switzer G . Body image in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Questionnaire: development and validation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211(2):174.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.019. View

12.

Digesu G, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S . P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16(3):176-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1225-x. View

13.

Barber M, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L . Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2011; 30(4):541-6. PMC: 3759146. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20934. View

14.

Gelhorn H, Coyne K, Sikirica V, Gauld J, Murphy M . Psychometric evaluation of health-related quality-of-life measures after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(4):221-6. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825e6707. View

15.

Wiegersma M, Panman C, Berger M, de Vet H, Kollen B, Dekker J . Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 216(4):397.e1-397.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010. View

16.

Barber M, Walters M, Cundiff G . Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(5):1492-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.076. View

17.

Bo K, Angles-Acedo S, Batra A, Braekken I, Chan Y, Jorge C . International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(10):2633-2667. PMC: 9477909. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05324-0. View

18.

Lans A, Bales J, Borkhetaria P, Schwab J, Verlaan J, Rossi L . Impact of Health Literacy on Self-Reported Health Outcomes in Spine Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022; 48(7):E87-E93. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004495. View

19.

Jones G, Radley S, Lumb J, Farkas A . Responsiveness of the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire-Pelvic Floor (ePAQ-PF). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20(5):557-64. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0790-9. View

20.

OShea M, Boyles S, Bradley C, Jacobs K, McFatrich M, Sung V . AUGS-PERFORM: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Quality of Prolapse Care. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022; 28(8):468-478. PMC: 9365262. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001225. View