Guidelines for the management of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a systematic appraisal of their quality

Appleyard TL, T-L Appleyard, T‐L Appleyard, Mann CH, C H Mann, CH Mann, Khalid S. Khan, K S Khan
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2006 · vol. 113(7) , pp. 749–757 · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00937.x · PMID:16827756 · W2063159521
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 13 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This systematic appraisal found that existing guidelines for managing pelvic pain associated with endometriosis generally do not meet high-quality standards, particularly in applicability and application domains.

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines exist for the management of endometriosis. Validated and reliable appraisal tools exist to assess the quality of guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To systematically appraise the quality of guidelines for the management of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Guidelines were identified using a prospective protocol through a systematic search of MEDLINE (1951-2005), EMBASE (1974-2005), the Cochrane Library (2005, issue 2), known guideline websites and the World Wide Web. SELECTION CRITERIA: Type of document: guideline, consensus statement, care protocol or healthcare technology assessment produced by national or international professional organisations and societies or governmental agencies; subject: management of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two validated appraisal tools, Cluzeau and The Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE), were used to quantitatively assess the quality of guidelines. Areas evaluated included 'rigour of development', 'context and content' and 'application.' MAIN RESULTS: Eight of 596 potentially relevant citations identified met our inclusion criteria. The Cluzeau instrument quality score were the following: rigour of development, 53% (range 5-65%); context and content, 69% (range 29-79%) and application 20% (range 0-20%). The application dimension achieved significantly lower quality scores (P = 0.026 versus rigour of development and P = 0.017 versus context and content). The AGREE instrument quality scores were the following: scope and purpose, 68% (range 17-89%); stakeholder involvement, 33% (range 13-63%); rigour of development, 49% (range 10-81%); clarity of presentation, 55% (range 42-67%); applicability, 14% (range 0-28%) and editorial independence, 28% (range 8-67%). The applicability domain achieved significantly lower quality scores (P = 0.001 versus scope and purpose and P = 0.009 versus rigour of development). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for the management of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis do not comply with the recommendations for high-quality standards.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Pelvic Pain Practice Guidelines as Topic Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain Practice Guidelines as Topic Quality Assurance, Health Care Quality of Health Care

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

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. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (18)

Cited by (13)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-04T06:14:36.401170+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:15:18.313808+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-04T06:29:23.997191+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK