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.
Keywords: Apical prolapse; Core outcome sets; Outcome variation; Pelvic organ prolapse; Uterine prolapse; Vault prolapse.
© 2019 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.