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.

Feasibility of a paediatric radiology escape room for undergraduate education.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a paediatric radiology themed escape room session for undergraduate education and secondly, to determine participant satisfaction and improvement in knowledge. METHODS: A paediatric radiology escape room with accompanying tutorial was developed around key learning objectives set within the RCR and ESR undergraduate curriculum. Students were recruited from two different universities and undertook the escape room themed teaching. An 8-question single best answer (SBA) test was completed before, immediately after and at 2 weeks post-teaching to determine participant improvement and retention of knowledge. The general feedback was also collected. RESULTS: The escape room sessions were held three times, for 19 students (6-7 students per session). All groups completed the escape room in ≤ 20 min. Students enjoyed the experience, assigning an average satisfaction score of 9.4/10 (range 7-10). The majority (17/19, 89.5%) preferred this method of teaching to a lecture-based tutorial alone, although all said they found the tutorial component useful. For the SBA test, there was an average increase in 3.6 marks (range 1-6 marks) per participant between before and after the escape room. This improved knowledge was mostly sustained after 2 weeks, with an average increase of 3.4 marks difference (range 1 to 6) per participant compared to before the teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A paediatric radiology themed escape room is a feasible teaching method, enjoyed by participants and associated with an increase in radiological knowledge. Further work with larger sample size and direct comparison with other traditional teaching methods is required.