Use of patient reported outcome questionnaires in the urogynecologic literature§

Authors


  • Authors participation in the manuscript: A.D. Treszezamsky: Protocol/project development (original idea), data collection and analysis, manuscript writing/editing. N. Ehsani: Data management, statistical analysis, manuscript writing/editing. R. Connell: Data collection, manuscript editing. M. Dick-Biascoechea: Data management, statistical analysis, manuscript editing. T. Fashokun: Project development (mentor), data analysis, manuscript writing/editing.

  • Conflict of interest: A.D. Treszezamsky, R. Connell, M. Dick-Biascoechea, T. Fashokun: none to declare. Nazanin Ehsani: consultant for American Medical Systems.

  • §

    Mickey Karram led the peer-review process as the Associate Editor responsible for the paper

Abstract

Aims

We aimed to describe the current use of patient reported outcome questionnaires (PROQ) in the urogynecologic literature.

Methods

All articles from 2009 in 11 journals were reviewed and included if PROQ were used. PROQ were assigned the grades of recommendation used by the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI). Data were collected by two independent reviewers (differences resolved by consensus). Fisher and χ2 tests were used for statistics.

Results

Of the 212 articles included, 126 used multiple PROQ. Seventy-two percent used at least one grade A PROQ and 42% exclusively used grade A PROQ. Articles about urinary incontinence (UI) were more likely to use grade A PROQ than those pertaining to interstitial cystitis or anal incontinence. Eighty-three articles used PROQ in non-English languages. These articles were as likely to use ICI grade A PROQ as those using English PROQ. When translated questionnaires are used, 41.5% of articles did not provide references for a validation of the translated version. Eighty-seven different PROQ were identified and used 422 times. Of those, 75 were developed in English. Short versions were used more frequently. PROQ available online were used 9.4 times more frequently than those requiring payment. The more utilized PROQ were more often grade A than those rarely used (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Using multiple PROQ is common in the literature reviewed. 72.2% of articles used at least one PROQ with the highest ICI recommendation but only 42% used exclusively those. Short and easily available PROQ were used more often. Most PROQ are developed in English. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32: 336–340, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Ancillary