Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40922503›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Developing the FIGO-IPPS "R U MOVVING SOMe" classification system for female chronic pelvic pain.

Georgine Lamvu, Juan D Villegas-Echeverri, Catherine Allaire, Sawsan As-Sanie, Jorge Carrillo, Susan Khalil, Andrew W Horne, Alexander Wang, Malcolm G Munro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pelvic venous disorders in women: Diagnosis and management for gynecologists.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Developing the FIGO-IPPS "R U MOVVING SOMe" classification system for female chronic pelvic pain.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Georgine LamvuCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-0707
Juan D Villegas-EcheverriALGIA, Unidad de Laparoscopia Ginecologica Avanzada y Dolor Pelvico, Pereira, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1903-1160
Catherine AllaireBC Women's Centre for Pelvic Pain and Endometriosis, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-5660
Sawsan As-SanieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jorge CarrilloCollege of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Susan KhalilDivision of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital at the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Andrew W HorneCentre for Reproductive Health, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9656-493X
Alexander WangVeterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Malcolm G MunroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

Not funded.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal was to develop a pragmatic classification system for conditions associated with chronic pelvic pain (CPP), aiming to enhance diagnosis, management, education, and research of CPP. An international, multidisciplinary panel participated in a modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus. This panel included healthcare professionals, medical society representatives, experts, individuals with lived experience of pain, advocacy groups, researchers, educators, and journal editors. The Delphi process comprised three rounds: two online surveys and one virtual meeting. Participants scored their agreement with statements using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). A priori criteria for consensus were defined as follows: agreement, a mean score ≥7 with <15% scoring ≤3; disagreement, a mean score ≤3 with <15% scoring ≥7. Responses not meeting these criteria were considered indeterminate and advanced for further refinement in subsequent rounds. In round 1, 65 of 77 (84.4%) stakeholders participated; round 2 consisted of responses from 54 (70.1%) stakeholders, and 34 (44.2%) stakeholders engaged in round 3. The Delphi process yielded broad consensus on the definition of CPP and a corresponding classification system with the acronym R U MOVVING SOMe. This novel system comprises 12 categories: Reproductive, Urinary, Musculoskeletal, Other (not otherwise classified), Vulvovaginal, Vascular, Idiopathic (no pain contributor identified), Neurologic, Gastrointestinal, Sensitization/Nociplastic, Overlapping pain conditions, and Mental health. The R U MOVVING SOMe classification system represents a significant step towards a standardized framework for evaluating CPP. The high level of engagement and consensus among a diverse group of international stakeholders underscores its future potential to improve communication, clinical practice, education, and research in this challenging field.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPelvic PainConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansSurveys and Questionnaireschronic pelvic painclassification systemfemaleR U MOVVING SOMe

Identifiers

PMID40922503
PMCPMC12553108

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.