Purpose To systematically assess the validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Data sources A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were consulted. Study selection Only studies explicitly aimed at validation of PROMs specific for patients with inguinal hernia were included. Data extraction Data regarding measurement properties of PROMs were extracted from the included studies. Each study was critically assessed for methodological quality and each PROM was evaluated for sufficient measurement properties. Results of data synthesis We included 15 studies, covering 11 different PROMs. The Carolinas Comfort Scale was the most frequently investigated PROM, being covered in five of the included publications. The included PROMs were evaluated according to nine different measurement properties, of which internal consistency and construct validity were the most frequently assessed. Evidence regarding content validity and structural validity was universally inadequate, according to the criteria for good measurement properties, as defined by the COSMIN. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, it is not possible to formulate recommendations for application of PROMs for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Further validation of the included PROMs is necessary especially regarding content validity and structural validity.

There are many ways to determine the success of an inguinal hernia operation. Traditional measures are hernia recurrence, neuralgia, mesh infection, or rather the absence of these complications. While these traditional measures obviously have their merits, alternative outcomes are emerging, and researchers and clinicians are gaining an increasing interest in patient-reported outcomes and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are patient questionnaires concerning quality of life, chronic pain, disability, or other subjects that are best assessed by the patients. PROMs come in two different forms: generic and condition specific. The generic PROMs concern general symptoms and issues, while the condition-specific PROMs target patients with a certain condition. Inguinal hernia-specific PROMs typically address issues like mesh-related symptoms, groin pain, sexual dysfunction, etc. Clinical measurement instruments such as PROMs should be carefully validated according to standardized guidelines to ensure their psychometric measurement properties. Unfortunately, this type of evidence is often lacking when it comes to inguinal hernia-specific PROMs. In this review, we explain why PROMs are useful for patients with inguinal hernia and why one should use inguinal hernia-specific PROMs as opposed to the generic ones. We address the importance of population-specific validation and explain what type of evidence is lacking. Last, we discuss the future prospects of using PROMs for patients with inguinal hernia.

No abstract