ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
A Scoping Review of Interdisciplinary Care Programs for Women With Persistent Pelvic Pain.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: Central Sensitization, Psychosocial Burden, and Mechanism-Based Multidisciplinary Care.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Pelvic Floor Therapy, Integrated Therapy, and Pharmacotherapy in the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePersistent pelvic pain affects one in four women, with international guidelines recommending interdisciplinary care. However, much of the literature describing treatments for pelvic pain focus on the perspective of individual professions. This narrative scoping review aimed to increase understanding of interdisciplinary pelvic pain care in terms of the professions and treatment components included, coordination of care and the inclusion of people with lived experience (PWLE) in program development. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Guided by PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, systematic database searches were conducted in CINAHL, Scopus, Medline and PsychINFO to identify interdisciplinary programs for women with persistent pelvic pain, including pelvic pain diagnoses such as endometriosis, vulvodynia and painful bladder syndrome. Data were charted on number and type of professions (disciplines) included, treatment components, care organisation and coordination, and PWLE involvement.
resultsThe search yielded 1068 records; 69 full-text articles were reviewed, and 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Commonly included professions were physiotherapy, psychology and gynaecology. Treatment components included assessment, education and pain management strategies. Information pertaining to the coordination of care between professions and the engagement of PWLE in program development was limited.
conclusionThis review found significant variation in the structure and components of interdisciplinary pelvic pain care programs, emphasising the need for greater consistency in their development and implementation. Further empirical research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of specific program components. Enhanced coordination among professions and increased involvement of PWLE in program design are also recommended. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This scoping review found wide variability in the processes of interdisciplinary pelvic pain care for women. Professions most frequently included were pelvic physiotherapy, psychology and gynaecology, and components most consistently included were assessment, education and pain management strategies. Coordination of care was poorly described, and people with lived experience (PWLE) were rarely involved in program development. Findings highlight the need for greater inclusion of PWLE in program design, and greater standardisation of interdisciplinary care so that outcomes can be evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.