Variation in outcome selection and reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating minimally invasive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) limits comparability and evidence synthesis. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the range, consistency, and quality of reported outcomes and outcome measures in RCTs of laparoscopic and robotic POP surgery.

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched from inception to May 2025.
Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials including adult women undergoing laparoscopic or robotic surgical interventions for POP. Data extracted included study characteristics, reported outcomes, and outcome measures.
Outcomes were grouped into domains and overarching themes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score, while outcome reporting quality was evaluated using MOMENT criteria. Correlation analyses were performed to explore associations between reporting quality and study characteristics.

Forty-five RCTs involving 4,566 women were included. A total of 83 distinct outcomes and 59 outcome measures were identified, grouped into 12 domains.
The most frequently reported outcomes were operative time (60–65%), blood loss (~60%), postoperative pain (~50%), quality of life (~50%), and anatomical success (~60%). However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in outcome definitions, reporting frequency, and measurement tools.
Patient-reported outcomes were assessed in most studies, but with marked variability, particularly in quality-of-life measures, where 24 different instruments were used. The POP-Q system was the most consistently applied objective measure.
Important patient-centered outcomes such as sexual function, cosmesis, and cost were infrequently reported. Definitions of surgical success and recurrence varied considerably across studies.
Methodological quality was moderate overall, and no strong correlation was found between reporting quality and journal impact factor or study characteristics.

Outcome reporting in RCTs of minimally invasive POP surgery is highly heterogeneous, particularly for patient-reported and long-term outcomes. This variability limits comparability across studies and complicates meta-analysis and evidence-based decision-making.
The underrepresentation of patient-centered outcomes highlights a misalignment between research reporting and patient priorities.

There is a clear need for standardization of outcome selection and reporting in POP surgery trials. Development and implementation of core outcome sets will improve comparability, enhance research quality, and support patient-centered care.