Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2025
Assessing Kinesiophobia and Catastrophizing Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Efficacy of Capacitive-Resistive Monopolar Radiofrequency Combined with Myofascial Techniques vs. Sham Radiofrequency in Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome-A Secondary Analysis.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03797911 (Efficacy of Resistive Capacitive Monopolar Radiofrequency in the Physiotherapeutic Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Efficacy of Resistive Capacitive Monopolar Radiofrequency in the Physiotherapeutic Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain: Randomized Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Gynaecological Chronic Pelvic Pain in the Emergency Setting- A Scoping Review.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Matrix Radiofrequency Combined with Myofascial Manipulation in the Treatment of Myofascial Pelvic Pain: A Retrospective Study.International urogynecology journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisChronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome causes psychological distress, worsened by kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing. This study assesses whether combining capacitive-resistive monopolar radiofrequency with myofascial techniques is more effective than myofascial techniques alone for improving psychological outcomes such as kinesiophobia and catastrophizing.
methodsThis double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 81 chronic pelvic pain syndrome patients (67.9% female, mean age 43.6 years) from March 2019 to April 2021. Participants were assigned to either an activated (intervention) or deactivated (control) capacitive-resistive monopolar radiofrequency group, with both groups receiving physiotherapy and pain education over 10 weeks. Outcomes on kinesiophobia and catastrophizing were assessed at weeks 5 and 10, using the Spanish versions of the Tampa Scale (TSK-11) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS).
resultsAt treatment's end, the intervention group showed greater improvement in kinesiophobia (3 points) compared to controls, though nonsignificant (p = .099). The intervention also significantly reduced catastrophizing scores by 8 points versus control (p = .042). No major adverse effects occurred, and adherence was high (86.4%), with no differences between groups.
conclusionThis study shows that combining capacitive-resistive monopolar radiofrequency with myofascial techniques can improve kinesiophobia and catastrophizing in chronic pelvic pain syndrome patients, such as fear movement and catastrophic thinking related to pain. This marks a potential breakthrough in chronic pain management. Future research should focus on larger, multicenter RCTs with extended follow-up periods to better assess long-term effects. REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration (NCT03797911).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39873778What 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.