ArticleRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Lessons learned from the experiences of patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPP syndrome) with a multidisciplinary consultation: a qualitative study.
Article in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic pelvic pain syndrome is a complex multifactorial condition with an increasing prevalence probably due to a rising awareness. Chronic pelvic pain syndrome is pain in the pelvic area and often accompanied with complaints in other organ systems of the lesser pelvis. Patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome who present at our center are evaluated in a standardized care pathway with an integrated multidisciplinary consultation. The team works in a single center and consists of gynecologists, pain specialists, urologists, a pelvic floor physiotherapist and a psychologist. The aim of this interview study is to evaluate the value of the multidisciplinary consultation from the patient's perspectives.
methodsIn a qualitative study, we evaluated the experiences and perspectives of patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome concerning the multidisciplinary consultation at the Radboud University Medical Center. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome who attended a multidisciplinary consultation between 2019 and 2022. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and analyzed via ATLAS.ti with the conventional content analysis.
resultsData saturation was reached after seven interviews, followed by three confirmative interviews. In total, 10 patients (22-76 years) participated in the study. Three relevant themes were identified in the interviews: the deleterious effects of pain on overall health, the importance of the design of the multidisciplinary consultation, and the performance of healthcare professionals (knowledge, skills and interaction with patients and colleagues). Participants suggested that although the consultation did not improve their pain experience, there was value in having a comprehensive assessment of their disease. Patients preferred the consultation to occur at the beginning of the care. Additionally, they acknowledged the performance of healthcare providers and having their complaints recognized. However, some participants suggested the need for additional attention to mental health issues during the multidisciplinary consultation. DISCUSSION: Even though patients did not perceive the multidisciplinary consultation to improve their pain experience, they appreciated the sense of recognition by this team.
conclusionA multidisciplinary consultation is of value from the patients' perspective. A suggestion for improvement emerged where the multidisciplinary consultation should occur at the beginning of the patient journey.
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.