ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
The proportion of women with central sensitivity syndrome in gynecology outpatient clinics (GOPDs).
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pelvic organ prolapse: Women's experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations for improvement.BMC women's health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPatients in gynecology outpatient clinics (GOPDs) may present with symptoms that do not correlate well with the observed pathology and are usually labelled as having a functional disorder or medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Underlying central sensitivity syndrome (CSS) with central sensitization (CS) as a potential mechanism may be responsible for some of their symptoms. The aim of this study is to identify the proportion of women with central sensitivity syndrome attending GOPDs.
methodsThis was a prospective study. All women attending a GOPD included in the study were asked to complete a validated Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI). The responses were graded on a Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The total score ranges from 0 to 100. For screening purposes, a single CSI cutoff score of 40 was used to identify the group of women who may have central sensitization syndrome.
resultsThree hundred twenty-six women participated in the study. Overall, 123 (37%) women achieved a score above 40. This could be interpreted as these patients having increased risk of underlying central sensitization. Of these, 43 had a previously confirmed diagnosis of migraine, 55 (44%) depression, 39 (31.7%) anxiety, 11 fibromyalgia (FM), 34 irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and 16 chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME).
conclusionsManaging patients and their expectations in gynecological outpatient departments when symptoms are inconsistent with observable pathological findings is challenging. This is further complicated when patients have a concomitant central sensitivity syndrome, which can also influence the surgical outcome. Identifying these patients is a key factor for appropriate management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29974141What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.