Application of patient-reported outcome instruments in nonsurgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review.
Miao Li, Huan Wang, Yuanli Jia and 2 others
PMID 42536925WHAT IT FOUND
Care for pelvic organ prolapse without surgery uses many questionnaires completed by patients, mainly for symptoms, quality of life or treatment outcomes.
No one tool covers all key concerns, and timing varies. This maps practice; it does not prove any treatment works.
Key findings
01The review included 19 studies and identified 29 patient-reported outcome instruments used in non-surgical pelvic organ prolapse care.
02These instruments mainly assessed prolapse symptoms, quality of life, psychological status or treatment goals, and no included instrument covered all recommended key constructs.
03Paper questionnaires were the main collection method, and only one included study used electronic questionnaires.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only English and Chinese studies, so findings may not represent other languages or health systems. The included studies varied widely in design, population, questionnaire, setting and timing, so the review could not compare results directly. It describes how patient-reported outcome tools have been used; it does not test whether any non-surgical treatment works. No included questionnaire covered all key constructs recommended for pelvic organ prolapse assessment. Electronic questionnaires were rarely used, and the one electronic study did not validate its electronic version.
Declared interests
Funded by the Health Commission of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, China.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that patient-reported questionnaires improve pelvic organ prolapse care. It maps which questionnaires have been used in 19 non-surgical studies and shows large variation in tools and timing, but it does not test whether using them changes patient outcomes.