The clinical usefulness of endometriosis research is being hindered by a lack of a uniform core outcomes set in published trials, according to the findings of a systematic review.
Martin Hirsch of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry and his colleagues reviewed 54 randomized controlled trials with 5,427 participants evaluating a surgical intervention – with or without medical adjuvant therapy – for the treatment of endometriosis symptoms. They included all randomized, controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE from inception to November 2014 and found a wide variation in the outcomes reported.
Across all trials, there were 164 outcomes and 113 outcomes measures reported. The three most commonly reported primary outcomes were dysmenorrhea (23 trials), dyspareunia (21 trials), and pregnancy (26 trials).
This level of variation among trials makes it difficult to make comparisons and synthesize data, according to the researchers. “This limits the usefulness of research to inform clinical practice, enhance patient care, and improve patient outcomes.”
Mr. Hirsch and his colleagues called for an international consensus on a core outcome set for endometriosis trials. Until then, they suggested the use of the three most common pain-related outcomes – dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain – as well as subfertility outcomes, measured by pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth.
Read the full study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology ( doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.039 ).
mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @maryellenny
