Variations in bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (IC) definitions, pathogenesis, diagnostics and treatment: a systematic review and evaluation of national and international guidelines

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS Interstitial cystitis (IC) and bladder pain syndrome (BPS) are challenging and encompassing hypersensitivity disorders of the lower urinary tract. A variety of national and international guidelines have been published including guidance on nomenclature, definitions, etiopathology, diagnostics and treatment. A lack of universally established clinical guidance is apparent. The aim of this review is to evaluate key guidelines on this area of practice, identify variations, compare their recommendations and grade them using AGREE II. METHODS Literature searches were performed using the PUBMED and CINAHL database from January 1, 1983, to December 1, 2018, referring to the search strategy of AUA. Ten national and international guidelines were included into the analysis. We assessed the guidelines with the updated AGREE II. RESULTS Symptoms congruent in all guidelines are: pain, pressure, discomfort and frequency, urgency and nocturia. Urinalysis is a prerequisite for diagnostics, cystoscopy for most and urodynamics not part of the routine assessment. Treatment options are recommended stepwise. The highest level of evidence and consensus was identified for oral therapies. Nine guidelines had an overall quality score ≥ 50% and three scored ≥ 70% (AUA, GG, RCOG). CONCLUSIONS The guidelines are congruent in symptom reporting, quite congruent in diagnostics and vary to a high degree on treatment recommendations. The complexity of BPS and emerging evidence indicate the need for regular updating of the guidelines and a wider consensus

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

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