A systematic review of English language patient-reported outcome measures for use in urogynaecology and female pelvic medicine

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 32; no. 8; pp. 2033 - 2092
• Main Authors: Gray, Thomas G., Vickers, Holly, Krishnaswamy, Priyanka, Jha, Swati
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01-08-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Clinical medicine; Gynecology; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Pelvic organ prolapse; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Review Article; Systematic review; Urology; Vagina; Patient reported outcome measures; Urinary incontinence; Fecal incontinence; Surveys and questionnaires; Urogynaecology; Sexual dysfunction; Anal incontinence; Pelvic organ prolapse; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Quality of life
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04810-1

Introduction
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in clinical practice and research in urogynaecology. There is no consensus on which PROMs should be used. No unifying document identifies all available PROMs and compares the psychometric properties of these.
Methods
Systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines. Studies where women had been administered an English-language PROM which assessed pelvic-floor symptomatology and psychometric properties had been reported were included.
Results
85 PROMs assessing pelvic-floor symptoms in a urogynaecology population were identified. 43 PROMs assessed lower urinary tract symptoms in 95 studies, four PROMS assessed vaginal symptoms in seven studies, 20 PROMs assessed bowel symptoms in 27 studies and three PROMs assessed sexual symptoms in seven studies. 15 PROMs assessed two or more of these symptom areas in 60 studies. PROMs with the with the best available psychometric evidence within these five areas were (urinary symptoms) the Incontinence Quality-of-Life questionnaire (I-QOL aka ICIQ-UIqol) and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI-SF), (bowel symptoms) the Accidental Bowel Leakage Evaluation (ABLE) questionnaire and the International Consultation on Incontinence Bowel questionnaire (ICIQ-B), (vaginal symptoms) the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POPSS), (sexual symptoms) the Pelvic organ prolapse- urinary Incontinence Sexual function Questionnaire- IUGA revised (PISQ-IR) and (comprehensive PROMs) the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire and the Electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire-Pelvic-Floor (ePAQ-PF).
Conclusions
Multiple PROMs with robust psychometric properties are available. Some widely used PROMs have weak evidence. Formal recommendations on which English-language PROMs to use within clinical practice and research in urogynaecology are required.