ArticlePloS one2019
Treatment of Urethral Pain Syndrome (UPS) in Sweden.
Article in PloS one, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Policresulen for Disbudding Dairy Calves: A Two-Part Study on Calf Welfare and Consumer Perceptions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrethral Pain Syndrome (UPS) in women is a recurrent urethral pain without any proven infection or other obvious pathology. There are few studies on UPS, and evidence-based treatment is lacking. The primary aim was to study what treatments are used, and to compare the treatment tradition of UPS in Sweden in 2018, with what was used in 2006.
methodsA questionnaire on the treatment of women with UPS was sent to all public gynecology, urology, gynecologic oncology and venereology clinics, and one public general practice in each county in Sweden in 2018. Private practice clinics in gynecology responded to the survey in 2017. Comparisons were made with the same survey sent to gynecology and urology clinics in 2006.
findingsOf 137 invited clinics in 2018, 99 (72.3%) responded to the survey. Seventy-seven (77.8%) of them saw women with UPS and 79.2% (61/77) of these clinics treated the patients using 19 different treatment methods. Local corticosteroids and local estrogens were the methods most used. Treatments were similar in gynecology and urology clinics in 2006 and 2018, although strong corticosteroids had increased in use in the treatment regimens of 2018. More than half of the clinics used antibiotics.
interpretationSince there is no evidence-based treatment of UPS, a wide spectrum of treatments is used, and different specialties use different treatment strategies. Despite the lack of proven infection, a large number of clinics also treated the syndrome with antibiotics. There is thus a need for well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials to find evidence-based treatments of UPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.