A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set (COS) for childbirth pelvic floor trauma research.

BACKGROUND: More than 85% of women sustain different degrees of trauma during vaginal birth. Randomized controlled trials on childbirth pelvic floor trauma have reported a wide range of outcomes and used different outcome measures. This variation restricts effective data synthesis, impairing the ability of research to inform clinical practice. The development and use of a core outcome set (COS) for childbirth pelvic floor trauma aims to ensure consistent use of outcome measures and reporting of outcomes. METHODS: An international steering group, within CHORUS, an International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women's Health, including academic community members, researchers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and women with childbirth pelvic floor trauma will lead the development of this COS. Relevant outcome parameters will be identified through comprehensive literature reviews. The selected outcomes will be entered into an international, multi-perspective online Delphi survey. Subsequently and based on the results of the Delphi surveys consensus will be sought on 'core' outcomes. DISCUSSION: Dissemination and implementation of the resulting COS within an international context will be supported and promoted. Embedding the COS for childbirth pelvic floor trauma within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines is expected to enrich opportunities for comparison of future clinical trials and allow better synthesis of outcomes, and will enhance mother and child care. The infrastructure created by developing a COS for childbirth pelvic floor trauma could be leveraged in other settings, for example, advancing research priorities and clinical practice guideline development

Developing Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Core Outcome Measures Sets (COMS) in Cosmetic Gynecological Interventions: Protocol for a Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating cosmetic gynecological interventions have followed variable methodology and reported a diversity of outcomes. Such variations limit the comparability of studies and the value of research-based evidence. The development of core outcome sets (COS) and core outcome measures sets (COMS) would help address these issues, ensuring a minimum of outcomes important to all stakeholders, primarily women requesting or having experienced cosmetic gynecological interventions. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes the methods used in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. METHODS: An international steering group within CHORUS, including health care professionals, researchers, and women with experience in cosmetic gynecological interventions from 4 continents, will guide the development of COS and COMS. Potential outcome measures and outcomes will be identified through comprehensive literature reviews. These potential COS and COMS will be entered into an international, multi-perspective web-based Delphi survey where Delphi participants judge which domains will be core. A priori thresholds for consensus will get established before each Delphi round. The Delphi survey results will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively in subsequent stakeholder group consensus meetings in the process of establishing "core" outcomes. RESULTS: Dissemination and implementation of the resulting COS and COMS within an international context will be promoted and reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol presents the steps in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. Embedding the COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines could contribute to enhancing the value of research and improving overall patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) 1592; https://tinyurl.com/n8faysuh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/28032

A systematic review on reporting outcomes and outcome measures in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: Urgent action is needed to improve quality of research.

The use of synthetic mesh in pelvic organ prolapse surgery is being closely scrutinized because of serious concerns regarding life-changing complications such as erosion, pain, infection, bleeding, dyspareunia, organ perforation, and urinary problems. Randomized trials and their syntheses in meta-analysis offer a unique opportunity to assess efficacy and safety. However, outcomes and outcome measures need to be consistently selected, collected, and reported across randomized trials to be effectively combined in systematic reviews. AIMS: We evaluated outcome and outcome measure reporting across randomized controlled trials on surgical interventions using synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials using synthetic mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The selected studies were evaluated using Jadad and MOMENT criteria. Outcomes and outcome measures were systematically identified and categorized. RESULTS: Seventy-one randomized trials were included. Twenty-four different types of mesh were identified. Included trials reported 110 different outcomes and 60 outcome measures. Erosion (40 trials, 78%), pain (29 trials, 56%), bleeding (31 trials, 61%), and dyspareunia (25 trials, 49%) were the most frequently reported outcomes. The longest follow up was 74 months. CONCLUSIONS: Most randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions using synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse failed to report on clinically important outcomes and to evaluate efficacy and safety over the medium- and long-term. Developing and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, in future vaginal prolapse trials could help address these issues

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.

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

Physiological Roles of Orexin Receptors on Sleep/Wakefulness Regulation

Hypothalamic neuropeptides orexin-A and orexin-B play critical roles in the regulation of sleep/wakefulness, as well as in a variety of physiological functions including emotion, reward and energy homeostasis. The effects of orexin peptides are mediated by two receptors, orexin 1 (OX1R) and orexin 2 (OX2R) receptors. These receptors show differential expression patterns depending on brain regions and neuron types, suggesting their differential roles. Here, we review the current understanding of the physiological roles of each orexin receptor subtype, focusing on the regulation of sleep/wakefulness. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015. All rights reserved.Book Chapter, Embargo Period 12 month

Outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the pharmacological management of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) in women; a systematic review for the development of core outcome sets (COS).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Evidence on OAB management remains suboptimal and methodological limitations in randomized control trials (RCTs) affect their comparability. High quality meta-analyses are lacking. This study aimed to compare selection and reporting of outcomes and outcome measures across RCTs as well as evaluate methodological quality and outcome reporting quality as a first stage in the process of developing core outcome sets (COS). METHODS: RCTs were searched using Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, ICTRP and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to January 2020, in English language, on adult women. Pharmacological management, interventions, sample size, journal type and commercial funding were documented. Methodological and outcome reporting quality were evaluated using JADAD and MOMENT scores. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials (18,316 women) were included. Sixty-nine outcomes were reported, using 62 outcome measures. The most commonly reported outcome domains were efficacy (86.8%), safety (73.7%) and QoL (60.5%). The most commonly reported outcomes in each domain were urgency urinary incontinence episodes (UUI) (52.6%), antimuscarinic side effects (76.3%) and change in validated questionnaire scores (36.8%). A statistically significant correlation was found between JADAD and MOMENT (Spearman's rho = 0.548, p < 0.05) scores. This indicates that higher methodological quality is associated with higher outcome reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: Development of COS and core outcome measure sets will address variations and lead to higher quality evidence. We recommend the most commonly reported outcomes in each domain, as interim COS. For efficacy we recommend: UUI episodes, urgency and nocturia episodes; for safety: antimuscarinic adverse events, other adverse events and discontinuation rates; for QoL: OAB-q, PPBC and IIQ scores

A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized controlled trials on apical prolapse surgery.

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

A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions for posterior vaginal prolapse to aid development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven interventional and four follow-up trials were included. Seventeen studies enrolled patients with posterior compartment surgery as the sole procedure and 14 with multicompartment procedures. Eighty-three reported outcomes and 45 outcome measures were identified. The most frequently reported outcomes were blood loss (20 studies, 74%), pain (18 studies, 66%) and infection (16 studies, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations in reported outcomes and outcome measures were found. Until a core outcome set is established, we propose an interim core outcome set that could include the three most commonly reported outcomes of the following domains: hospitalization; intraoperative, postoperative urinary, gastrointestinal, vaginal and sexual outcomes; clinical effectiveness. PROSPERO: CRD42017062456

Comparison of muscle fiber directions between different levator ani muscle subdivisions: in vivo MRI measurements in women

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS This study describes a technique to quantify muscle fascicle directions in the levator ani (LA) and tests the null hypothesis that the in vivo fascicle directions for each LA subdivision subtend the same parasagittal angle relative to a horizontal reference axis. METHODS Visible muscle fascicle direction in the each of the three LA muscle subdivisions, the pubovisceral (PVM; synonymous with pubococcygeal), puborectal (PRM), and iliococcygeal (ICM) muscles, as well as the external anal sphincter (EAS), were measured on 3-T sagittal MRI images in a convenience sample of 14 healthy women in whom muscle fascicles were visible. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) angle values relative to the horizontal were calculated for each muscle subdivision. Repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc paired t tests were used to compare muscle groups. RESULTS Pubovisceral muscle fiber inclination was 41 ± 8.0°, PRM was -19 ± 10.1°, ICM was 33 ± 8.8°, and EAS was -43 ± 6.4°. These fascicle directions were statistically different (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons among levator subdivisions showed angle differences of 60° between PVM and PRM, and 52° between ICM and PRM. An 84° difference existed between PVM and EAS. The smallest angle difference between levator divisions was between PVM and ICM 8°. The difference between PRM and EAS was 24°. All pairwise comparisons were significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The null hypothesis that muscle fascicle inclinations are similar in the three subdivisions of the levator ani and the external anal sphincter was rejected. The largest difference in levator subdivision inclination, 60°, was found between the PVM and PRM