Patient-reported outcome measures in benign gynecologic surgery: updates and selected tools

review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08

This review summarizes validated patient-reported outcome measures for abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids, and endometriosis, highlighting heterogeneity in current research tools and the need for standardization.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice and research is becoming more prevalent and reflects initiatives to center the patient in healthcare delivery and outcomes assessment. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary description of selected, validated tools used to assess outcomes related to several benign gynecologic conditions: abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids and endometriosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Given the availability of several validated instruments to assess patient outcomes in benign gynecology, there is still significant heterogeneity in tools used in trials. SUMMARY: Patient outcomes assessment should be an integral part of clinical practice and research in order to treat the whole patient and address any health-related impacts on quality of life. More attention is needed to increase standardization of tools used in research to facilitate assessment of comparative efficacy between treatments.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Gynecologic Surgical Procedures Patient Outcome Assessment Patient Reported Outcome Measures Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Gynecologic Surgical Procedures Humans Leiomyoma Leiomyoma Psychometrics Quality of Life Surveys and Questionnaires Symptom Assessment Uterine Hemorrhage Uterine Hemorrhage Uterine Neoplasms Uterine Neoplasms

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (47)

Cited by (1)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-11T06:19:48.454388+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:54.901233+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK