How can we measure endometriosis-associated pelvic pain?

Christoph Gerlinger, Ulrike Schumacher, René Wentzeck, Kerstin Uhl-Hochgräber, Erich Solomayer, H. Schmitz, Thomas Faustmann, Christian Seitz
In: Journal of Endometriosis · 2012 · vol. 4(3) , pp. 109–116 · doi:10.5301/je.2012.9725 · W2001530045
article OA: green CC0 ⤵ 17 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study compared pain scales for endometriosis and found the Visual Analog Scale correlated best with overall clinical impression, while dysmenorrhea and SF-36 bodily pain had the largest effect sizes.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This paper compares commonly used pain measurement tools in 428 women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain across three studies, evaluating how well different scales—visual analog scale, Biberoglu and Behrman (B&B) score, and the SF-36 bodily pain subscale—track treatment-related change as reflected by the Clinical Global Impression score. Using correlation coefficients and effect sizes, the authors report the visual analog scale showed the highest correlation with Clinical Global Impression, followed by the B&B pelvic pain item. They also find the largest effect sizes for dysmenorrhea and the SF-36 bodily pain subscale, with the visual analog scale next. The authors’ stated limitation is that their recommendation relies on performance against Clinical Global Impression rather than a single standardized pain outcome, and on data drawn from three studies. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it assesses which pain scale best measures endometriosis-associated pelvic pain for use as a clinical trial primary endpoint.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Purpose The aim of our work was to explore which of the most commonly used pain scales is best suited to assess treatment success in endometriosis therapy and, therefore, qualifies best to be used as primary endpoint for clinical studies in this indication. Methods We compared patient's responses on the different pain scales Visual Analog Scale, Biberoglu and Behrman Score, and SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale with the Clinical Global Impression score. Parametric and non-parametric correlation coefficients and effect sizes were calculated. Results A total of 428 patients with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain from three studies were included in our analyses. Their mean age was 31.4±6.3 years and their mean pain score on the visual analog scale was 58.1±21.9 at baseline. The highest correlation with the Clinical Global Impression score was observed for the visual analog scale followed by the B&B pelvic pain item. The highest effect sizes were found for dysmenorrhea and SF-36 bodily pain subscale followed by the visual analog scale. Conclusions A general measure of endometriosis-related pain can be recommended as primary endpoint in clinical trials to assess painful symptoms of endometriosis. In addition, a disease-specific quality of life tool is recommended to help interpret impact on patients’ daily activities.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Outcome instruments

Biberoglu-Behrman

Condition tags

endometriosisdysmenorrhea

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (18)

Cited by (17)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK