Quality assessment of outcome reporting, publication characteristics and overall methodological quality in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse for development of core outcome sets
| Autor: | Standards in Urogynaecology, Constantin M. Durnea, Gabriele Falconi, Thais Regina de Mattos Lourenço, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis, Abdullatif Elfituri, Christiana Campani Nygaard, Vasilis Pergialiotis, Cornelia Betschart, Jorge Milhem Haddad |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | University of Zurich, Doumouchtsis, Stergios K |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
2748 Urology
medicine.medical_specialty Synthetic mesh media_common.quotation_subject Urology 610 Medicine & health Review Article Outcome (game theory) Pelvic Organ Prolapse law.invention Publication Characteristics Randomized controlled trial law Outcome Assessment Health Care Medicine Humans Quality (business) Methodological quality media_common Pelvic organ Impact factor business.industry Obstetrics and Gynecology 2729 Obstetrics and Gynecology Prostheses and Implants Surgical Mesh Jadad scale 10174 Clinic for Gynecology Mesh prolapse surgery Treatment Outcome Physical therapy Core outcome sets business |
| Zdroj: | International Urogynecology Journal |
| ISSN: | 1433-3023 0937-3462 |
| Popis: | Introduction and hypothesis Variations in outcome measures and reporting of outcomes in trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using synthetic mesh have been evaluated and reported. However, the quality of outcome reporting, methodology of trials and their publication parameters are important considerations in the process of development of Core Outcome Sets. We aimed to evaluate these characteristics in randomized controlled trials on surgery for POP using mesh. Methods Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical treatments using synthetic mesh for POP previously included in a systematic review developing an inventory of reported outcomes and outcome measures. The methodological quality was investigated with the modified Jadad criteria. Outcome reporting quality was evaluated with the MOMENT criteria. Publication parameters included publishing journal, impact factor and year of publication. Results Of the 71 previously reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2017, the mean JADAD score was 3.59 and the mean MOMENT score was 4.63. Quality of outcomes (MOMENT) was related to methodological quality (JADAD) (rho = 0.662; p = 0.000) and to year of publication (rho = 0.262; p = 0.028). Conclusions Methodological quality and outcome reporting quality appear correlated. However, publication characteristics do not have strong associations with the methodological quality of the studies. Evaluation of the quality of outcomes, methodology and publication characteristics are all an indispensable part of a staged process for the development of Core Outcome and Outcome Measure Sets. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink