Dataset Information

A systematic review of outcome reporting and outcome measures in studies investigating uterine-sparing treatment for adenomyosis.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

Which outcomes and outcome measures are reported in interventional trials evaluating the treatment of adenomyosis?

Summary answer

We identified 38 studies, reporting on 203 outcomes using 133 outcome measures.

What is known already

Heterogeneity in outcome evaluation and reporting has been demonstrated for several gynaecological conditions and in fertility studies. In adenomyosis, previous systematic reviews have failed to perform a quantitative analysis for central outcomes, due to variations in outcome reporting and measuring.

Study design size duration

A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed with a timeframe from 1950 until February 2021, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).

Participants/materials setting methods

Studies reporting on any uterus-sparing intervention to treat adenomyosis, both prospective and retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were a clear definition of diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis and the modality used to make the diagnosis, a clear description of the intervention, a follow-up time of ≥6 months, a study population of n ≥ 20, a follow-up rate of at least 80%, and English language. The population included premenopausal women with adenomyosis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.

Main results and the role of chance

We included 38 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 32 cohort studies), including 5175 participants with adenomyosis. The studies described 10 interventions and reported on 203 outcomes, including 43 classified as harms, in 29 predefined domains. Dysmenorrhoea (reported in 82%), heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (in 79%) and uterine volume (in 71%) were the most common outcomes. Fourteen different outcome measures were used for dysmenorrhoea and 17 for HMB. Quality of life was reported in 9 (24%) studies, patient satisfaction with treatment in 1 (3%). A clear primary outcome was stated in only 18%.

Limitations reasons for caution

This review includes studies with a high risk of bias.

Wider implications of the findings

Shortcomings in the definition and choice of outcomes and outcome measures limit the value of the conducted research. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for interventional studies in adenomyosis could improve research quality. This review suggests a lack of patient-centred research in adenomyosis and people with adenomyosis should be involved in the development and implementation of the COS.

Study funding/competing interests

No funds specifically for this work were received. T.T. receives fees from General Electrics for lectures on ultrasound independently of this project.

Trial registration number

This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020177466) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (registration number 1649).

SUBMITTER: Tellum T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8398753 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a digital and continuous collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for chronic heart failure (CHF).DesignA single-site pilot study was settled for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention, both using qualitative and quantitative data (ie, workshop, surveys).SettingThe pilot has been implemented in a Tuscan specialised hospital (Italy).Participants162 patients were involved. Inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of HF, age ≥18 years, absence of cognitive impairment or active tumours, ability to provide informed consent to study participation.InterventionThe continuous collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs has been designed and implemented in 2018. PREMs questionnaires for patients were developed, while Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 was used for assessing PROMs. Questionnaires are administered at specific time points: discharge; 30 days, 7 and 12 months after the discharge. Enrolment of patients, administration and real-time reporting of questionnaires are carried on through a digital platform.Outcome measuresEnrolment, response and drop-out rates were considered to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Qualitative data were collected during meetings and workshops with health workers. The representativeness of the recruited sample with respect to the population characteristics was also evaluated.ResultsThe system has been successfully implemented during 2018. Response rates have been consistently above 50%, demonstrating patients' transversal willingness to participate. All the involved stakeholders acknowledged the feasibility of the design. The recruited sample is significantly different in terms of age and educational level compared with the overall population characteristics.ConclusionIt is possible to run a web-based systematic collection and reporting system for CHF patient-reported data. Systematic collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs data allows professionals to increasingly assume CHF patient perspective in their daily work. Limitations will be used to improve the system.