Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome

Seema A. Tirlapur; Richeal Ni Riordain; Khalid S. Khan; L. Mignini; P. Von Dadelszen; L. Magee; D. Sawchuck; E. Gao; B. W. Mol; K. Oude Rengerink; J. Zamora; C. Fox; J. Daniels; S. Thangaratinam; C. Meads

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome

Seema A. Tirlapur^*, Richeal Ni Riordain, Khalid S. Khan, L. Mignini, P. Von Dadelszen, L. Magee, D. Sawchuck, E. Gao, B. W. Mol, K. Oude Rengerink, J. Zamora, C. Fox, J. Daniels, S. Thangaratinam, C. Meads

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper investigates the quality of outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bladder pain syndrome and its relationship with study quality and journal impact factor. We searched until August 2013 the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS and SIGLE, without language restrictions. Quality of outcome reporting in systematic reviews and constituent RCTs was assessed using a 6-point scale. Overall study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR and Jadad scoring systems, and impact factor in the year of publication was noted. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated. There were 8 systematic reviews, with a total of 28 RCTs (1732 patients), reporting 5 outcomes using 19 different measurement scales. The outcomes reported in individual RCTs were urinary symptoms (100%), pain (64%), quality of life (39%), general wellbeing (36%) and bladder capacity (36%). The mean quality of outcomes reported was 1.63 (95% CI 0.29-2.96) for systematic reviews and 3.25 (95% CI 2.80-3.70) for RCTs. The quality of outcomes reported showed correlation with overall study quality (0.90, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p < 0.0001) but not with journal impact factor (0.07, 95% CI β0.31-0.43, p = 0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (b = 0.05, p < 0.0001), adjusting for effects of study type, impact factor and journal type. There is a need to generate consensus over a set of core outcomes in bladder pain syndrome using standardised reporting tools and to disseminate these through good publication practice.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	61-67
Number of pages	7
Journal	European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume	180
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003
Publication status	Published - Sept 2014

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We received funding from the European Union made available to the EBM-CONNECT Collaboration through its Seventh Framework Programme, Marie Curie Actions, International Staff Exchange Scheme (Proposal no. 101377; Grant Agreement no. 247613); EBM-CONNECT Canadian Collaborators received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No funders played a role in the planning and execution of this work or in drafting of the manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords

AMSTAR
Bladder pain syndrome
Core outcome set
Randomised controlled trials
Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Reproductive Medicine
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

Cite this

Tirlapur, S. A., Riordain, R. N., Khan, K. S., Mignini, L., Von Dadelszen, P., Magee, L., Sawchuck, D., Gao, E., Mol, B. W., Rengerink, K. O., Zamora, J., Fox, C., Daniels, J., Thangaratinam, S., & Meads, C. (2014). Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 180(1), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

@article{c227e73e8a6641c4ba8e75ae9cb63414,

title = "Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome",

abstract = "This paper investigates the quality of outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bladder pain syndrome and its relationship with study quality and journal impact factor. We searched until August 2013 the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS and SIGLE, without language restrictions. Quality of outcome reporting in systematic reviews and constituent RCTs was assessed using a 6-point scale. Overall study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR and Jadad scoring systems, and impact factor in the year of publication was noted. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated. There were 8 systematic reviews, with a total of 28 RCTs (1732 patients), reporting 5 outcomes using 19 different measurement scales. The outcomes reported in individual RCTs were urinary symptoms (100%), pain (64%), quality of life (39%), general wellbeing (36%) and bladder capacity (36%). The mean quality of outcomes reported was 1.63 (95% CI 0.29-2.96) for systematic reviews and 3.25 (95% CI 2.80-3.70) for RCTs. The quality of outcomes reported showed correlation with overall study quality (0.90, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p < 0.0001) but not with journal impact factor (0.07, 95% CI β0.31-0.43, p = 0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (b = 0.05, p < 0.0001), adjusting for effects of study type, impact factor and journal type. There is a need to generate consensus over a set of core outcomes in bladder pain syndrome using standardised reporting tools and to disseminate these through good publication practice.",

keywords = "AMSTAR, Bladder pain syndrome, Core outcome set, Randomised controlled trials, Systematic review",

author = "Tirlapur, {Seema A.} and Riordain, {Richeal Ni} and Khan, {Khalid S.} and L. Mignini and {Von Dadelszen}, P. and L. Magee and D. Sawchuck and E. Gao and Mol, {B. W.} and Rengerink, {K. Oude} and J. Zamora and C. Fox and J. Daniels and S. Thangaratinam and C. Meads",

note = "Funding Information: We received funding from the European Union made available to the EBM-CONNECT Collaboration through its Seventh Framework Programme, Marie Curie Actions, International Staff Exchange Scheme (Proposal no. 101377; Grant Agreement no. 247613); EBM-CONNECT Canadian Collaborators received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No funders played a role in the planning and execution of this work or in drafting of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.",

year = "2014",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003",

language = "English",

volume = "180",

pages = "61--67",

journal = "European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology",

issn = "0301-2115",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "1",

}

Tirlapur, SA, Riordain, RN, Khan, KS, Mignini, L, Von Dadelszen, P, Magee, L, Sawchuck, D, Gao, E, Mol, BW, Rengerink, KO, Zamora, J, Fox, C, Daniels, J, Thangaratinam, S & Meads, C 2014, 'Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome', European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome. / Tirlapur, Seema A.; Riordain, Richeal Ni; Khan, Khalid S. et al.
In: European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 180, No. 1, 09.2014, p. 61-67.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome

AU - Tirlapur, Seema A.

AU - Riordain, Richeal Ni

AU - Khan, Khalid S.

AU - Mignini, L.

AU - Von Dadelszen, P.

AU - Magee, L.

AU - Sawchuck, D.

AU - Gao, E.

AU - Mol, B. W.

AU - Rengerink, K. Oude

AU - Zamora, J.

AU - Fox, C.

AU - Daniels, J.

AU - Thangaratinam, S.

AU - Meads, C.

N1 - Funding Information: We received funding from the European Union made available to the EBM-CONNECT Collaboration through its Seventh Framework Programme, Marie Curie Actions, International Staff Exchange Scheme (Proposal no. 101377; Grant Agreement no. 247613); EBM-CONNECT Canadian Collaborators received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No funders played a role in the planning and execution of this work or in drafting of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2014/9

Y1 - 2014/9

N2 - This paper investigates the quality of outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bladder pain syndrome and its relationship with study quality and journal impact factor. We searched until August 2013 the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS and SIGLE, without language restrictions. Quality of outcome reporting in systematic reviews and constituent RCTs was assessed using a 6-point scale. Overall study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR and Jadad scoring systems, and impact factor in the year of publication was noted. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated. There were 8 systematic reviews, with a total of 28 RCTs (1732 patients), reporting 5 outcomes using 19 different measurement scales. The outcomes reported in individual RCTs were urinary symptoms (100%), pain (64%), quality of life (39%), general wellbeing (36%) and bladder capacity (36%). The mean quality of outcomes reported was 1.63 (95% CI 0.29-2.96) for systematic reviews and 3.25 (95% CI 2.80-3.70) for RCTs. The quality of outcomes reported showed correlation with overall study quality (0.90, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p < 0.0001) but not with journal impact factor (0.07, 95% CI β0.31-0.43, p = 0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (b = 0.05, p < 0.0001), adjusting for effects of study type, impact factor and journal type. There is a need to generate consensus over a set of core outcomes in bladder pain syndrome using standardised reporting tools and to disseminate these through good publication practice.

AB - This paper investigates the quality of outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bladder pain syndrome and its relationship with study quality and journal impact factor. We searched until August 2013 the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS and SIGLE, without language restrictions. Quality of outcome reporting in systematic reviews and constituent RCTs was assessed using a 6-point scale. Overall study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR and Jadad scoring systems, and impact factor in the year of publication was noted. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated. There were 8 systematic reviews, with a total of 28 RCTs (1732 patients), reporting 5 outcomes using 19 different measurement scales. The outcomes reported in individual RCTs were urinary symptoms (100%), pain (64%), quality of life (39%), general wellbeing (36%) and bladder capacity (36%). The mean quality of outcomes reported was 1.63 (95% CI 0.29-2.96) for systematic reviews and 3.25 (95% CI 2.80-3.70) for RCTs. The quality of outcomes reported showed correlation with overall study quality (0.90, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p < 0.0001) but not with journal impact factor (0.07, 95% CI β0.31-0.43, p = 0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (b = 0.05, p < 0.0001), adjusting for effects of study type, impact factor and journal type. There is a need to generate consensus over a set of core outcomes in bladder pain syndrome using standardised reporting tools and to disseminate these through good publication practice.

KW - AMSTAR

KW - Bladder pain syndrome

KW - Core outcome set

KW - Randomised controlled trials

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922361047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25020277

AN - SCOPUS:84922361047

SN - 0301-2115

VL - 180

SP - 61

EP - 67

JO - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

JF - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

IS - 1

ER -

Variations in the reporting of outcomes used in systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness research in bladder pain syndrome

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this