How do we define the term idiopathic?

Seema A. Tirlapur, Lee Priest, Jane P Daniels, Khalid S. Khan, MEDAL Study Management Group
Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology · 2013 · vol. 25(6) , pp. 468–473 · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000025 · PMID:24121599 · W2329860850
Review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 3 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 commentary examines the challenges in defining "idiopathic" diseases and proposes using chronic pelvic pain syndrome as an example of developing a standardized working definition.

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

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term idiopathic is often used to describe a disease with no identifiable cause. It may be a diagnosis of exclusion; however, what specific minimum investigations need to be performed to define idiopathic is not always clear. This commentary describes the problems inherent in reaching a definition for the term idiopathic. RECENT FINDINGS: There is limited literature describing methodology to define a condition with no clear diagnostic criteria. This article offers chronic pelvic pain (CPP) syndrome as an example, in which structured qualitative interviews, literature searches and group consensus discussions were undertaken to produce a working definition for idiopathic CPP. SUMMARY: It is important to correctly develop these standardized definitions for use as outcome measures in research and as clinical indicators in healthcare.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain Terminology as Topic Consensus Evidence-Based Medicine Female Humans Qualitative Research Reference Standards

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 (21)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:12:41.142639+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-16T06:24:35.758740+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK