Scholarlink

Background <p>Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is among the most frequent proctological conditions. The traditional Goligher classification is based primarily on morphological criteria but often correlates poorly with the patients’ subjective burden. Furthermore, in clinical research there is a lack of uniformly defined endpoints, which significantly complicates the transparency and comparability of study results.</p> Objective <p>This article provides an overview of relevant outcome domains and highlights the value of validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and a&#xa0;core outcome set (COS) for improving the quality of clinical outcomes.</p> Material and methods <p>A&#xa0;systematic literature review was conducted, incorporating current guidelines (S3 guidelines, European Society of Coloproctology, ESCP) and scientific publications on the validation of proctological scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments.</p> Results <p>The measurement of clinical outcomes traditionally includes complications (e.g., according to Clavien-Dindo), postoperative pain (visual analogue score, VAS), and recurrence rates; however, symptom-specific PROMs, such as the PROM-hemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (HISS), the Sodergren score and the HEMO-FISS-QoL (hemorrhoids-anal fissures-quality of life) questionnaire are gaining in importance, as they reliably reflect the disease burden from the patient’s perspective. While unspecific questionnaires on health or quality of life (SF-12, EQ-5D) often show no significant changes in low-grade HD, PROMs capture functional limitations and patient satisfaction with high sensitivity. The ESCP has defined a&#xa0;COS identifying core parameters, such as bleeding, prolapse, pain, itching and soiling.</p> Conclusion <p>Measuring outcome quality must evolve from purely clinician-centered findings toward subjective symptom improvement and patient satisfaction. The use of PROMs supports shared decision-making and enables a&#xa0;differentiated evaluation of therapeutic success. Systematic, ideally digital, collection of standardized datasets is essential for modern quality assurance and evidence-based comparison of therapeutic interventions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ergebnisqualität nach Hämorrhoidentherapie

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月15日

查看全文
  • Markus Völl

摘要

Background

Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is among the most frequent proctological conditions. The traditional Goligher classification is based primarily on morphological criteria but often correlates poorly with the patients’ subjective burden. Furthermore, in clinical research there is a lack of uniformly defined endpoints, which significantly complicates the transparency and comparability of study results.

Objective

This article provides an overview of relevant outcome domains and highlights the value of validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and a core outcome set (COS) for improving the quality of clinical outcomes.

Material and methods

A systematic literature review was conducted, incorporating current guidelines (S3 guidelines, European Society of Coloproctology, ESCP) and scientific publications on the validation of proctological scores and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments.

Results

The measurement of clinical outcomes traditionally includes complications (e.g., according to Clavien-Dindo), postoperative pain (visual analogue score, VAS), and recurrence rates; however, symptom-specific PROMs, such as the PROM-hemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (HISS), the Sodergren score and the HEMO-FISS-QoL (hemorrhoids-anal fissures-quality of life) questionnaire are gaining in importance, as they reliably reflect the disease burden from the patient’s perspective. While unspecific questionnaires on health or quality of life (SF-12, EQ-5D) often show no significant changes in low-grade HD, PROMs capture functional limitations and patient satisfaction with high sensitivity. The ESCP has defined a COS identifying core parameters, such as bleeding, prolapse, pain, itching and soiling.

Conclusion

Measuring outcome quality must evolve from purely clinician-centered findings toward subjective symptom improvement and patient satisfaction. The use of PROMs supports shared decision-making and enables a differentiated evaluation of therapeutic success. Systematic, ideally digital, collection of standardized datasets is essential for modern quality assurance and evidence-based comparison of therapeutic interventions.