Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34148114›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021

Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on the management of female chronic pelvic pain (CPP) using the AGREE II instrument.

Vishalli Ghai, Venkatesh Subramanian, Haider Jan, Jemina Loganathan, Stergios K Doumouchtsis, CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health (i-chorus.org)

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of YouTube videos on primary bladder pain syndrome.International urogynecology journal · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Vishalli GhaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, KT18 7EG, UK. vishalli.ghai25@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-0583
Venkatesh SubramanianDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, KT18 7EG, UK.
Haider JanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, KT18 7EG, UK.
Jemina LoganathanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, KT18 7EG, UK.
Stergios K DoumouchtsisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dorking Road, London, KT18 7EG, UK.
CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health (i-chorus.org)
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisVariations in guidelines may result in differences in treatments and potentially poorer health-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the quality of national and international guidelines and create an inventory of CPG recommendations on CPP.

methodsWe searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from inception till August 2020 as well as websites of professional organizations and societies. We selected national and international CPGs reporting on the diagnosis and management of female CPP. We included six CPGs. Five researchers independently assessed the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE II tool and extracted recommendations.

resultsTwo hundred thirty-two recommendations were recorded and grouped into six categories: diagnosis, medical treatment, surgical management, behavioural interventions, complementary/alternative therapies and education/research. Thirty-nine (17.11%) recommendations were comparable including: a comprehensive pain history, a multi-disciplinary approach, attributing muscular dysfunction as a cause of CPP and an assessment of quality of life. Two guidelines acknowledged sexual dysfunction associated with CPP and recommended treatment with pelvic floor exercises and behavioural interventions. All guidelines recommended surgical management; however, there was no consensus regarding adhesiolysis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy during hysterectomy, neurectomy and laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation. Half of recommendations (106, 46.49%) were unreferenced or made in absence of good-quality evidence or supported by expert opinion. Based on the AGREE II assessment, two guidelines were graded as high quality and recommended without modifications (EAU and RCOG). Guidelines performed poorly in the "Applicability", "Editorial Independence" and "Stakeholder Involvement" domains.

conclusionMajority of guidelines were of moderate quality with significant variation in recommendations and quality of guideline development.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPelvic PainQuality of LifeConsensusDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicAGREE II toolChronic pelvic painGuidelinesSexual dysfunctionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34148114
PMCPMC8536555
OpenAlexW3176602036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.