ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2025
Patient Related Outcomes for Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome Recommendations for Clinical Trials and General Urology Practice.
Review in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urinary Biomarkers in Interstitial Cystitis and Bladder Pain Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Differential Diagnosis and Treatment Monitoring.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Outcome of combined triamcinolone and platelet-rich plasma injection in treatment of patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of multimodal therapy for patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome refractory to previous bladder monotherapy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Different Bladder Monotherapies Versus Multimodal Therapy in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe goal of this committee of the Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain (IC/BPS) Consensus Group was to address the use of patient related outcomes (PROs) in IC/BPS.
methodsPriority areas of concern and related PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions were addressed based on literature review, committee discussion and consensus group feedback. Consensus recommendations were developed regarding PROs and PRO Measures (PROMs) for the critical PICO questions.
resultsPICO questions addressed 4 critical areas of concern: PROs, clinical trial primary endpoints, secondary endpoint PROMs and questionnaires for general practice management. The committee made 12 recommendations regarding outcomes in IC/BPS research and clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The most important recommendation was the unmet need to develop and validate a better IC/BPS specific PRO, based on unbiased patient qualitative research methodology. At the present time, the Numerical Rating/VAS pain scales, voiding diaries and global response assessment are recommended for primary endpoint outcomes in clinical trials. The suggested composite IC/BPS specific PROM is the Genito Urinary Pain Index (GUPI) while the Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index/Problem Index can be used for trial comparisons. If appropriate, generic PROMs that describe and measure pain, quality of life, sexual, and psychosocial parameters are suggested. Until a validated PRO is developed, the NIH GUPI or the Pain Urinary Frequency (PUF) questionnaire provides reasonable clinical evaluation of patients in standard urology practice.
conclusionPROMs are currently available for use in clinical trials and general practice, but more research is required to create better IC/BPS PRO-based outcome measures.
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.