Chronic pelvic pain in an interdisciplinary setting: 1-year prospective cohort

article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 95 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08

This prospective cohort study investigated the characteristics and outcomes of patients with chronic pelvic pain managed within an interdisciplinary setting over one year.

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

Abstract

BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects ∼15% of women, and presents a challenging problem for gynecologists due to its complex etiology involving multiple comorbidities. Thus, an interdisciplinary approach has been proposed for chronic pelvic pain, where these multifactorial comorbidities can be addressed by different interventions at a single integrated center. Moreover, while cross-sectional studies can provide some insight into the association between these comorbidities and chronic pelvic pain severity, prospective longitudinal cohorts can identify comorbidities associated with changes in chronic pelvic pain severity over time.ObjectiveWe sought to describe trends and factors associated with chronic pelvic pain severity over a 1-year prospective cohort at an interdisciplinary center, with a focus on the role of comorbidities and controlling for baseline pain, demographic factors, and treatment effects.Study designThis was a prospective 1-year cohort study at an interdisciplinary tertiary referral center for pelvic pain and endometriosis, which provides minimally invasive surgery, medical management, pain education, physiotherapy, and psychological therapies. Exclusion criteria included menopause or age >50 years. Sample size was 296 (57% response rate at 1 year; 296/525). Primary outcome was chronic pelvic pain severity at 1 year on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0-10), which was categorized for ordinal regression (none-mild 0-3, moderate 4-6, severe 7-10). Secondary outcomes included functional quality of life and health utilization. Baseline comorbidities were endometriosis, irritable bowel syndrome, painful bladder syndrome, abdominal wall pain, pelvic floor myalgia, and validated questionnaires for depression, anxiety, and catastrophizing. Multivariable ordinal regression was used to identify baseline comorbidities associated with the primary outcome at 1 year.ResultsChronic pelvic pain severity decreased by a median 2 points from baseline to 1 year (6/10-4/10, P < .001). There was also an improvement in functional quality of life (42-29% on the pain subscale of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30, P < .001), and a reduction in subjects requiring a physician visit (73-36%, P < .001) or emergency visit (24-11%, P < .001) in the last 3 months. On multivariable ordinal regression for the primary outcome, chronic pelvic pain severity at 1 year was independently associated with a higher score on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale at baseline (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.21, P = .04), controlling for baseline pain, treatment effects (surgery), age, and referral status.ConclusionImprovements in chronic pelvic pain severity, quality of life, and health care utilization were observed in a 1-year cohort in an interdisciplinary setting. Higher pain catastrophizing at baseline was associated with greater chronic pelvic pain severity at 1 year. Consideration should be given to stratifying pelvic pain patients by catastrophizing level (rumination, magnification, helplessness) in research studies and in clinical practice.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Chronic Pain Pelvic Pain Adult Age Factors British Columbia British Columbia Catastrophization Chronic Pain Cohort Studies Emergency Service, Hospital Emergency Service, Hospital Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans Office Visits Office Visits Pain Measurement Pelvic Pain Quality of Life

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 (36)

Cited by (50)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-28T06:14:09.330459+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:20:13.663096+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK