ArticlePain2026
Women with chronic pelvic pain can be stratified using multimodal assessment.
Article in Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractChronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common and burdensome symptom in women yet current clinical management frequently leaves many with persistent pain. The Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project adopts a pain-focused strategy, aiming to better phenotype CPP through multimodal assessment. Here, we integrated questionnaire, physiological, and biological data to (1) determine whether perturbations in the function of pain-relevant systems in women with CPP can be demonstrated and (2) explore whether these data can stratify women with CPP into meaningful subgroups, independent of diagnostic group. Participants included 108 women, aged 18 to 50 years, with CPP including endometriosis-associated pain (EAP), bladder pain syndrome (BPS), comorbid EAP and BPS, and pelvic pain with no underlying pathology alongside 50 pain-free controls. Analyses were conducted in 3 stages: (1) group comparisons, (2) latent profile analysis to identify CPP subgroups, and (3) clinical characterization of resulting clusters. Compared with controls, CPP participants reported significantly greater fatigue, poorer sleep, higher anxiety, depression, pain catastrophising, and more childhood trauma (P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were observed in physiological measures. Latent profile analysis revealed 3 distinct CPP subgroups, differentiated by questionnaires rather than physiological measures. Cluster 1 represents a group with predominantly higher-impact pain compared with others, that may be associated with nociplastic mechanisms. These findings support alternative approaches to stratification of CPP separate from standard diagnostic groupings. The role of questionnaire measures in this stratification facilitates translation to clinical settings; however, further work is required to determine whether differing therapeutic approaches are appropriate for each cluster.
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.