Vulvodynia: What is available online? A systematic review of information on the internet.

AIM: This review aimed to evaluate the quality of medicalinformation online for patients relating to vulvodynia. To our knowledge no evaluation of online patient information exists regarding vulvodynia and, at present, there is no standardized or validated method of evaluating medical information on the internet. METHODS: A clearly defined protocol was developed to generate keywords relating to vulvodynia. The three most popular search engines worldwide; google.com, yahoo.com, and bing.com, were searched in September 2020. Three assessors evaluated eligible webpages for accuracy, credibility, readability, and reliability. RESULTS: Forty-five webpages were eligible with 38% given HON certification or Information Standard approval. Only one webpage achieved a DISCERN score of ≥63 indicating excellent reliability. No webpages scored a maximum 10 points for credibility. Eleven percent of webpages were rated "accurate" with score 17 or above. The modal Flesch Kincaid Grade Level was 9 with only 15.6% having a readability grade level of 8 or less. CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown in previous studies that patient information available online pertaining to gynecological conditions is frequently inaccurate, with limited regulation and low reliability, and our findings are in agreement with this. As patients increasingly look to the internet for medical information and education, we as clinicians, need to ensure the resources available are of a high standard and regulated. Without ensuring safe and effective healthcare resources, we risk misinformation which can negatively impact clinical care.

Which patient reported outcomes (PROs) and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) do researchers select in stress urinary incontinence surgical trials? - a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The mesh controversy has highlighted the need for robust evidence of treatment safety and efficacy, particularly in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Current trials demonstrate heterogeneity in outcomes reported as well as outcome measures used, restricting the ability to synthesize data and produce robust research evidence (Doumouchtsis et al. 5). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be a focus when evaluating SUI surgery given the quality-of-life nature of this condition affecting 25-45% women worldwide (Milsom and Gyhagen 1). As part of the first step in developing a core outcome set (COS) and measures set (COMS), we aimed to systematically review RCTs evaluating SUI surgery and extract PROs and outcome measures (PROMs) used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched databases including MEDLINE and Cochrane for RCTs evaluating SUI surgical treatments from inception to January 2020. Eligibility criteria included English language and female-only subjects. PROs and PROMs were extracted and grouped into a structured inventory. PROMs were assigned to domains based on predominant theme. RESULTS: Of 123 eligible RCTs, 116 (94%) included PROs. Forty-four different PROMs were utilized; most frequent was Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Fifteen PROMs were used once. The top five PROMs have evidence of validity and are highly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus amongst relevant stakeholders regarding PROs or PROMs used in SUI surgery research. We propose that this consensus is required to standardize measurements and reporting and promote use of validated and reliable outcome measures. This systematic review forms the first step in the development process.

Reversal of colpocleisis-A surgical technique for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.

Given the rarity of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after obliterative procedures and the paucity of data in the literature on this topic, optimal management is challenging. We describe a technique of reversal of colpocleisis in an 81-year-old woman with recurrent prolapse as the first step in a staged, reconstructive procedure. Basic principles underlying our approach include multidisciplinary team involvement, detailed preoperative planning, and a series of investigations including different imaging modalities and a meticulous stepwise surgical technique. The distortion of anatomical planes, anticipated scarring, and close proximity of pelvic organs specifically bladder and rectum are important considerations. In our case, the multidisciplinary surgical team included urogynecologists, a urologist, and a colorectal surgeon. Detailed preoperative planning was agreed following multiple patient and team consultations. Preoperative investigations included ultrasound and videourodynamics. Intraoperatively, cystoscopy and sigmoidoscopy were performed to identify anatomical landmarks and planes, rule out fistulae, and evaluate for anatomical distortions involving pelvic organs. Subsequently, reversal of the colpocleisis was undertaken and uneventful. Postoperative recovery was uncomplicated and a sacrospinous fixation, anterior vaginal repair, and perineorrhaphy were performed as a secondary restorative procedure for the correction of recurrent prolapse.

Patient-reported outcomes and outcome measures in childbirth perineal trauma research: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in perineal trauma research, outcomes reported by patients should have a prominent focus. There is no international consensus regarding the use of either patient-reported outcomes (PROs) or tools used to determine these outcomes (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs). The objective was to evaluate the selection, reporting and geographical variations of PROs and PROMs in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on perineal trauma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of RCTs in perineal trauma research evaluating outcome and outcome measure reporting. We identified PROs and PROMs and grouped PROs into domains and themes, a classification system based on a medical outcome taxonomy. RESULTS: Of 48 included RCTs, 47 reported PROs. In total, we identified 51 PROs. Outcome reporting consistency was low, with 27 PROs reported only once. Nine PROs were reported more than five times, the most frequent being perineal pain, with no geographical variation in reporting. Four themes encompassing 12 domains were identified. The most frequently reported theme was "Clinical", with 25 PROs grouped within four domains. "Resource use" and "Adverse events" themes were rarely reported, with only five PROs. PROMs also exhibited variation. Most common were visual analogue scale (VAS; 100 mm), Cleveland Clinic Continence Score, The Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale, VAS (0-10) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity in PROs and PROMs was observed among RCTs. Despite inconsistency, PROs are the most prevalent outcome in perineal trauma research. Patient-reported adverse events are underreported. Their use in determining the effectiveness and safety of interventions makes their integration important in perineal trauma core outcome sets. Identification and grouping of outcomes will assist future core outcome consensus studies.

Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of female chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using the AGREE II instrument.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Variations in guidelines may result in differences in treatments and potentially poorer health-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the quality of national and international guidelines and create an inventory of CPG recommendations on CPP. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from inception till August 2020 as well as websites of professional organizations and societies. We selected national and international CPGs reporting on the diagnosis and management of female CPP. We included six CPGs. Five researchers independently assessed the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE II tool and extracted recommendations. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-two recommendations were recorded and grouped into six categories: diagnosis, medical treatment, surgical management, behavioural interventions, complementary/alternative therapies and education/research. Thirty-nine (17.11%) recommendations were comparable including: a comprehensive pain history, a multi-disciplinary approach, attributing muscular dysfunction as a cause of CPP and an assessment of quality of life. Two guidelines acknowledged sexual dysfunction associated with CPP and recommended treatment with pelvic floor exercises and behavioural interventions. All guidelines recommended surgical management; however, there was no consensus regarding adhesiolysis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during hysterectomy, neurectomy and laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation. Half of recommendations (106, 46.49%) were unreferenced or made in absence of good-quality evidence or supported by expert opinion. Based on the AGREE II assessment, two guidelines were graded as high quality and recommended without modifications (EAU and RCOG). Guidelines performed poorly in the "Applicability", "Editorial Independence" and "Stakeholder Involvement" domains. CONCLUSION: Majority of guidelines were of moderate quality with significant variation in recommendations and quality of guideline development.

Impact of COVID-19 on management of urogynaecology patients: a rapid review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted health systems worldwide. There is a continuing need for clinicians to adapt practice to facilitate timely provision of medical care, whilst minimising horizontal transmission. Guidance and recommendations are increasingly available, and this rapid review aimed to provide a timely evidence synthesis on the current recommendations surrounding urogynaecological care. METHODS: We performed a literature review using PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane and a manual search of national and international societies for management recommendations for urogynaecological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Nine guidance documents and 17 articles, including 10 reviews, were included. Virtual clinics are recommended for new and follow-up patients, to assess and initiate treatment, as well as triage patients who require face-to-face appointments. Outpatient investigations such as urodynamics and cystoscopy for benign indications can be deferred. Prolapse and continence surgery should be suspended, except in specific circumstances such as procidentia with upper tract complications and failed pessaries. There is no evidence to support a particular route of surgery, but recommendations are made to minimise COVID-19 transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Urogynaecological patients face particular challenges owing to inherent vulnerabilities of these populations. Behavioural and medical therapies should be recommended as first line options and initiated via virtual or remote clinics, which are integral to management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the availability and accessibility of technology will be increasingly required. The majority of outpatient and inpatient procedures can be deferred, but the longer-term effects of such practices are unclear.