Minimum standards for reporting outcomes of surgery in urogynaecology

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The IUGA special interest group (SIG) identified a need for a minimum data set (MDS) to inform outcome measurements to be included and simplify data capture and standardise reporting for data collection systems. To define a minimum data set for urogynaecological surgical registries. METHODS: Existing registries provide an inventory of items. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify a MDS. At each stage reviewers ranked data points and used free text to comment. The rating used a scale of 0–10 at each review and a traffic light system rated the scores as desirable, highly desirable and mandatory. The scores were collated and reported back to clinicians prior to the further rounds. Outliers were highlighted and reviewers re-assessed prior to repeating the process. A comparison of the MDS was made with published outcomes. RESULTS: Reviewers were from the outcome SIG with emphasis on widespread representation. Fifteen clinicians from eight countries were involved. Four reviewers dissected the existing databases. Eighty data points were considered in four categories, background, preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative. Consensus was reached by the third round. Two points were added on review (date of surgery and urodynamics). Three background points, five preoperative points, seven intraoperative points and nine postoperative points were identified giving 24 minimum data points in the final recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: An MDS has been developed for urogynaecological surgical registries. These should be mandatory points which then allow larger varying points to be assessed. These points correspond well to data points used in published papers from established databases.