SynthesisPain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2025
The clinical value of EMG and SSEP in diagnosing chronic pelvic pain syndrome; a systematic review.
Synthesis in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The clinical value of EMG and SSEP in diagnosing chronic pelvic pain syndrome; a systematic review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is pain in the region of the lower pelvis for three months or longer. Which is often accompanied by complaints of organ systems in the lower abdomen. CPPS is often a subjective diagnosis where electrodiagnostic tests are recommended as a supplement in defining a diagnosis.
objectiveSynthesize the clinical studies that describe electrodiagnostic testing in humans with a clinical diagnosis of CPPS. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024510404). A systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of science, from inception till February 2024, complemented with reference examining. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text papers, and performed data extraction. Reviews were excluded, and papers were included if patients were clinically diagnosed with CPPS and underwent EMG and/or SSEP. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of studies.
findingsFourteen papers were included concerning EMG and/or SSEP, nine papers reported on EMG and five on SSEP. In total, 432 patients clinically diagnosed with CPPS underwent electrodiagnostic testing. 152/277 patients showed abnormalities on EMG and 102/155 patients had abnormal findings on SSEP. Due to the lack of quantitative data, no meta-analysis could be performed.
conclusionsAbnormalities on electrodiagnostic testing are seen in half of the patients with CPPS, and therefore not recommended as a substitute in the diagnostic process. The low number of patients enrolled in this review needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Further research on the sensitivity of EMG and/or SSEP in PN is recommended.
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.