IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic review of quality of life measures in patients with endometriosis

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Bourdel
  • Pauline Chauvet
  • Valentina Billone
  • Giannis Douridas
  • Arnaud Fauconnier
  • Laurent Gerbaud
  • Michel Canis

Abstract

Objectives: Endometriosis and quality of life has been the subject of much research, however, there is little consensus on how best to evaluate quality of life in endometriosis, resulting in many and diverse scales being used. In our study, we aim to identify quality of life scales used in endometriosis, to review their strengths and weaknesses and to establish what would define an ideal scale in the evaluation of endometriosis-related quality of life. Materials and methods: A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out for publications in English and French for the period from 1980 to February 2017, using the words ‘endometriosis’ and ‘quality of life’. Publications were selected if they reported on quality of life in patients with endometriosis and specified use of a quality of life scale. A quantitative and a qualitative analysis of each scale was performed in order to establish the strengths and weaknesses for each scale (systematic registration number: PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014014210). Results: A total of 1538 articles publications were initially identified. After exclusion of duplicates and application of inclusion criteria, 201 studies were selected for analysis. The SF-36, a generic HRQoL measure, was found to be the most frequently used scale, followed by the EHP-30, a measure specific to endometriosis. Both perform well, when compared with other scales, with scale weaknesses offset by strengths. EHP-5 and EQ-5D also showed to be of good quality. All four were the only scales to report on MCID studied in endometriosis patients. Conclusion: For clinical practice, routine evaluation of HRQOL in women with endometriosis is essential both for health-care providers and patients. Both SF-36 and EHP-30 perform better overall with regard to their strengths and weaknesses when compared to other scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Bourdel & Pauline Chauvet & Valentina Billone & Giannis Douridas & Arnaud Fauconnier & Laurent Gerbaud & Michel Canis, 2019. "Systematic review of quality of life measures in patients with endometriosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-32, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208464
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208464
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208464&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208464?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.