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 -0.31-0.43, p=0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (β=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.