Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as constant or intermittent lower, cyclical or non-cyclical abdominal pain of at least six months’ duration. In the United Kingdom, over 1 million women suffer from CPP, with an estimated annual healthcare cost above £150 million. The aetiology of CPP is unknown in up to 50% of women, and in the remainder, the symptoms of CPP is associated with endometriosis, pelvic adhesions, irritable bowel syndrome or painful bladder syndrome. CPP is often accompanied by painful periods, pain during sexual intercourse and defaecation. Fatigue, sleep disturbances and depression are also common among this group of women. CPP asserts a heavy emotional, social and economic burden. Standard treatments such as hormonal and analgesic regimens are often associated with unacceptable side effects, even if helpful for the pain, underlining an urgent need for a satisfactory treatment. The meridian balanced method (BM) electro-acupuncture (EA) treatment (acupuncture needling + traditional Chinese medicine health consultation [TCM HC]) may be effective in managing CPP symptoms. Thus, I have completed a pilot study comprising of a three-armed randomised controlled trial (RCT), using a mixed methods research (MMR) approach, to assess the feasibility of a future large-scale RCT to determine the effectiveness of the meridian BMEA treatment on CPP in women. My hypothesis is that it is feasible to conduct such a large-scale RCT for CPP in women. The primary objectives were to determine recruitment and retention rates. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the, acceptability of the methods of recruitment, randomisation, interventions and assessment tools and any signals of effectiveness of the interventions. Thirty (30) women with CPP were randomised into three groups: BMEA treatment, TCM HC, or National Health Service standard care (NHS SC) group. The effects of my interventions were assessed by validated pain, physical and emotional functioning questionnaires, completed at weeks 0, 4, 8 and 12 of the study. Semi-structured telephone interviews and focus group discussions to explore participants’ experience of the study were conducted. Of the 59 women who were referred to the study, 30 women (51%) were randomised. There was a statistically significant difference in retention rates between the three groups. The retention rates were 80% (95% CI 74-96), in the BMEA treatment group, 53 % (95% CI 36- 70) in the TCM HC group and 87% (95% CI 63-90) in the NHS SC group. (Chi-square test, p=0.08) The attendance rates of the BMEA treatment group were 90% compared to 56% in the TCM HC group. There was a statistically significant difference (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.023) in attendance between the two intervention groups. Telephone interviews regarding the acceptability of the methods of recruitment, randomisation, assessment tools and interventions were positive. No adverse effects that were directly related to BMEA treatments were reported or observed. A higher proportion of the BMEA treatment group achieved clinical significance in the VAS-pain, BPI-pain severity, interference, and sleep scores, when compared to the other two groups. Due to small sample sizes, there was insufficient power to show statistically significant difference. (Fishers Exact Test, p=1.0) Analyses of the questionnaire data per group showed statistically significant differences in the following: the BMEA treatment group experienced less in pain at weeks 4 (p=0.01) and 8 (p=0.005); less helplessness (p=0.03) and their anxiety and depression scores declined at week 4 (p=0.04). The NHS SC group also reported less pain at week 4 (p=0.04). However, this group scored higher in anxiety and depression at weeks 8 and 12 (p=0.04). No statistically significant differences were achieved between the three groups at baseline, weeks 4, 8 and 12 in all scores. The therapeutic benefits gained by the TCM HC group were less compared to those of the BMEA treatment group, but better when compared to the NHS SC group. The BMEA treatment and TCM HC groups showed lower scores in anxiety and depression while the NHS SC group showed higher scores in anxiety and depression. The NHS SC group also tended to ruminate and magnify their problems as well as feeling more helpless than the other two groups. The three key themes that emerged from thematic analysis of focus group discussions were the “whole person effects” where participants reported an improvement in pain, sleep and a general sense of wellbeing in the two intervention groups; the “experience of standard care” and “impact of living with CPP”. In conclusion, the results of my pilot study are supportive of the feasibility of a future large-scale study. There were signals of effectiveness of interventions but the sample size was too small to make a definitive conclusion.

Introdução: A Dor Pélvica Crônica (DPC) é um problema social, com alta prevalência, acometendo mulheres na idade reprodutiva. Cada vez mais salientamos a importância de investigar instrumentos apropriados para avaliação da dor, facilitando na prática clínica a escolha do melhor método que torne mais completa a avaliação de aspectos da intensidade na mensuração da dor crônica. Portanto, o objetivo deste estudo é correlacionar diferentes instrumentos de avaliação da intensidade dolorosa, a escala numérica (EN), escala visual analógica (EVA) e a algometria de pressão, nas mulheres com DPC, a fim de identificar o instrumento que melhor expressa o quadro doloroso. Métodos: foram avaliadas pelo ginecologista oitenta mulheres encaminhadas ao ambulatório do serviço de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), trinta e três mulheres apresentaram algum aspecto dos nossos critérios de não inclusão. Selecionamos para participar do estudo quarenta e sete pacientes com DPC, sendo que vinte pacientes apresentavam endometriose diagnosticada por videolaparoscopia e vinte e sete pacientes apresentavam outras causas ginecológicas. Utilizamos no estudo um roteiro para anamnese cujos dados relacionados com a DPC foram coletados, tais como diagnóstico, tratamento, sintomatologia e locais da dor. Escores de dor foram classificados de acordo com a intensidade, através das escalas de dor (EN e EVA), instrumentos baseados no autorrelato do indivíduo e algometria de pressão, para verificar o limiar de dor à pressão das pacientes. Na análise dos dados, a concordância entre as escalas foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC) e a associação entre as escalas com o algômetro foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação de Spearman, o nível de significância adotado foi de 5% (P<0,05). Resultados: As participantes do estudo tinham idade média de 38,3 ± 7,6 anos. Utilizamos o ICC para análise da correlação entre os instrumentos de relato da percepção dolorosa, ou seja, entre as EN e EVA, em relação à dor (0,992), na dismenorreia (1,00) e na dispareunia (0,996), e encontramos excelente concordância entre as escalas, com P<0,01. As associações da algometria com as escalas foram moderadas e inversas, apresentando diferenças estatisticamente significativas, quanto maior a pontuação nas escalas EN e EVA em relação à dispareunia, menores os valores no algômetro, exceto nos pontos LA1 e LA2 em ambos os lados. Também houve associação inversa das escalas EN e EVA na dismenorréia, no ponto LAB2 lado direito e associação inversa no ponto PS lado direito com a escala EVA de dor, com diferenças estatisticamente significativas. Conclusão: As escalas são instrumentos eficientes para avaliação da dor, podendo ser utilizada tanto a EN quanto a EVA na avaliação da intensidade dolorosa. Na avaliação das mulheres com DPC devemos utilizar a algometria de pressão associada à EN ou EVA, instrumentos inversamente proporcionais, confiáveis e sensíveis, tornando menos subjetiva a avaliação da dor para melhor expressar o quadro doloroso. / Introduction: The Chronic Pelvic Pain (CPP) is a social problem, with high prevalence, affecting women in reproductive age. Increasingly, has been emphasised the importance of investigating appropriate instruments for evaluation of pain in clinical practice, by facilitating the choice of the best method to make more complete the evaluation in measuring intensity aspects of chronic pain. Therefore, the objective of this study is to correlate different painful intensity assessment tools, the numeric scale (NS), visual analogue scale (VAS) and algometry pressure, in women with CPP, in order to identify the instrument that best expresses the pain. Methods: were evaluated by the gynecologist eighty women referred to the Gynecology and Obstetrics service, Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre (HCPA), thirty three women had some aspect of our criteria for not inclusion. The study included forty seven patients, twenty patients had endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy and twenty seven patients had other gynecological causes. For the analyses in this study we used a road map for anamnesis whose data related to the CPP was collected, such as diagnosis, treatment, symptoms and pain locations. In addition, pain scores were classified according to intensity, through the pain scales (NS and VAS), based on self-report instruments of individual and algometry, to verify the pressure pain threshold of the patients. Statistically, the agreement between scales was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the association between the scales with the algometer were evaluated by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, the level of significance adopted was 5% (P<0,05). Results: Study participants had an average age of 38.3 ± 7.6 years old. In the statistical analysis, we used ICC reporting instruments of perception painful I mean, between NS and VAS regarding pain (0,992), in dysmenorrhoea (1.00) and Dyspareunia (0.996), and we found excellent correlation between scales, with P<0,01. The associations of algometria with the scales were moderate and inverses, showing differences statistically significant, the higher the score NS and VAS in relation to Dyspareunia smaller values in algometer, except in points LA1 and LA2 on both sides. Indeed, there were also inverse association of scales NS and VAS on dysmenorrhea, in point LAB2 in the right side and inverse association in point PS in the right side with scale VAS of pain, with statistically significant differences. Conclusion: the scales are effective instruments for evaluation of pain, and may be used both in NS and VAS at painful intensity evaluation. In the evaluation of women with CPP should be used the algometry pressure associated with NS or VAS, instruments inversely proportional, reliable and sensitive, making less subjective pain assessment to better express the pain.

Introdução: A Dor Pélvica Crônica (DPC) é um problema social, com alta prevalência, acometendo mulheres na idade reprodutiva. Cada vez mais salientamos a importância de investigar instrumentos apropriados para avaliação da dor, facilitando na prática clínica a escolha do melhor método que torne mais completa a avaliação de aspectos da intensidade na mensuração da dor crônica. Portanto, o objetivo deste estudo é correlacionar diferentes instrumentos de avaliação da intensidade dolorosa, a escala numérica (EN), escala visual analógica (EVA) e a algometria de pressão, nas mulheres com DPC, a fim de identificar o instrumento que melhor expressa o quadro doloroso. Métodos: foram avaliadas pelo ginecologista oitenta mulheres encaminhadas ao ambulatório do serviço de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), trinta e três mulheres apresentaram algum aspecto dos nossos critérios de não inclusão. Selecionamos para participar do estudo quarenta e sete pacientes com DPC, sendo que vinte pacientes apresentavam endometriose diagnosticada por videolaparoscopia e vinte e sete pacientes apresentavam outras causas ginecológicas. Utilizamos no estudo um roteiro para anamnese cujos dados relacionados com a DPC foram coletados, tais como diagnóstico, tratamento, sintomatologia e locais da dor. Escores de dor foram classificados de acordo com a intensidade, através das escalas de dor (EN e EVA), instrumentos baseados no autorrelato do indivíduo e algometria de pressão, para verificar o limiar de dor à pressão das pacientes. Na análise dos dados, a concordância entre as escalas foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC) e a associação entre as escalas com o algômetro foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação de Spearman, o nível de significância adotado foi de 5% (P<0,05). Resultados: As participantes do estudo tinham idade média de 38,3 ± 7,6 anos. Utilizamos o ICC para análise da correlação entre os instrumentos de relato da percepção dolorosa, ou seja, entre as EN e EVA, em relação à dor (0,992), na dismenorreia (1,00) e na dispareunia (0,996), e encontramos excelente concordância entre as escalas, com P<0,01. As associações da algometria com as escalas foram moderadas e inversas, apresentando diferenças estatisticamente significativas, quanto maior a pontuação nas escalas EN e EVA em relação à dispareunia, menores os valores no algômetro, exceto nos pontos LA1 e LA2 em ambos os lados. Também houve associação inversa das escalas EN e EVA na dismenorréia, no ponto LAB2 lado direito e associação inversa no ponto PS lado direito com a escala EVA de dor, com diferenças estatisticamente significativas. Conclusão: As escalas são instrumentos eficientes para avaliação da dor, podendo ser utilizada tanto a EN quanto a EVA na avaliação da intensidade dolorosa. Na avaliação das mulheres com DPC devemos utilizar a algometria de pressão associada à EN ou EVA, instrumentos inversamente proporcionais, confiáveis e sensíveis, tornando menos subjetiva a avaliação da dor para melhor expressar o quadro doloroso. / Introduction: The Chronic Pelvic Pain (CPP) is a social problem, with high prevalence, affecting women in reproductive age. Increasingly, has been emphasised the importance of investigating appropriate instruments for evaluation of pain in clinical practice, by facilitating the choice of the best method to make more complete the evaluation in measuring intensity aspects of chronic pain. Therefore, the objective of this study is to correlate different painful intensity assessment tools, the numeric scale (NS), visual analogue scale (VAS) and algometry pressure, in women with CPP, in order to identify the instrument that best expresses the pain. Methods: were evaluated by the gynecologist eighty women referred to the Gynecology and Obstetrics service, Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre (HCPA), thirty three women had some aspect of our criteria for not inclusion. The study included forty seven patients, twenty patients had endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy and twenty seven patients had other gynecological causes. For the analyses in this study we used a road map for anamnesis whose data related to the CPP was collected, such as diagnosis, treatment, symptoms and pain locations. In addition, pain scores were classified according to intensity, through the pain scales (NS and VAS), based on self-report instruments of individual and algometry, to verify the pressure pain threshold of the patients. Statistically, the agreement between scales was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the association between the scales with the algometer were evaluated by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, the level of significance adopted was 5% (P<0,05). Results: Study participants had an average age of 38.3 ± 7.6 years old. In the statistical analysis, we used ICC reporting instruments of perception painful I mean, between NS and VAS regarding pain (0,992), in dysmenorrhoea (1.00) and Dyspareunia (0.996), and we found excellent correlation between scales, with P<0,01. The associations of algometria with the scales were moderate and inverses, showing differences statistically significant, the higher the score NS and VAS in relation to Dyspareunia smaller values in algometer, except in points LA1 and LA2 on both sides. Indeed, there were also inverse association of scales NS and VAS on dysmenorrhea, in point LAB2 in the right side and inverse association in point PS in the right side with scale VAS of pain, with statistically significant differences. Conclusion: the scales are effective instruments for evaluation of pain, and may be used both in NS and VAS at painful intensity evaluation. In the evaluation of women with CPP should be used the algometry pressure associated with NS or VAS, instruments inversely proportional, reliable and sensitive, making less subjective pain assessment to better express the pain.

Introdução: A Dor Pélvica Crônica (DPC) é um problema social, com alta prevalência, acometendo mulheres na idade reprodutiva. Cada vez mais salientamos a importância de investigar instrumentos apropriados para avaliação da dor, facilitando na prática clínica a escolha do melhor método que torne mais completa a avaliação de aspectos da intensidade na mensuração da dor crônica. Portanto, o objetivo deste estudo é correlacionar diferentes instrumentos de avaliação da intensidade dolorosa, a escala numérica (EN), escala visual analógica (EVA) e a algometria de pressão, nas mulheres com DPC, a fim de identificar o instrumento que melhor expressa o quadro doloroso. Métodos: foram avaliadas pelo ginecologista oitenta mulheres encaminhadas ao ambulatório do serviço de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), trinta e três mulheres apresentaram algum aspecto dos nossos critérios de não inclusão. Selecionamos para participar do estudo quarenta e sete pacientes com DPC, sendo que vinte pacientes apresentavam endometriose diagnosticada por videolaparoscopia e vinte e sete pacientes apresentavam outras causas ginecológicas. Utilizamos no estudo um roteiro para anamnese cujos dados relacionados com a DPC foram coletados, tais como diagnóstico, tratamento, sintomatologia e locais da dor. Escores de dor foram classificados de acordo com a intensidade, através das escalas de dor (EN e EVA), instrumentos baseados no autorrelato do indivíduo e algometria de pressão, para verificar o limiar de dor à pressão das pacientes. Na análise dos dados, a concordância entre as escalas foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC) e a associação entre as escalas com o algômetro foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação de Spearman, o nível de significância adotado foi de 5% (P<0,05). Resultados: As participantes do estudo tinham idade média de 38,3 ± 7,6 anos. Utilizamos o ICC para análise da correlação entre os instrumentos de relato da percepção dolorosa, ou seja, entre as EN e EVA, em relação à dor (0,992), na dismenorreia (1,00) e na dispareunia (0,996), e encontramos excelente concordância entre as escalas, com P<0,01. As associações da algometria com as escalas foram moderadas e inversas, apresentando diferenças estatisticamente significativas, quanto maior a pontuação nas escalas EN e EVA em relação à dispareunia, menores os valores no algômetro, exceto nos pontos LA1 e LA2 em ambos os lados. Também houve associação inversa das escalas EN e EVA na dismenorréia, no ponto LAB2 lado direito e associação inversa no ponto PS lado direito com a escala EVA de dor, com diferenças estatisticamente significativas. Conclusão: As escalas são instrumentos eficientes para avaliação da dor, podendo ser utilizada tanto a EN quanto a EVA na avaliação da intensidade dolorosa. Na avaliação das mulheres com DPC devemos utilizar a algometria de pressão associada à EN ou EVA, instrumentos inversamente proporcionais, confiáveis e sensíveis, tornando menos subjetiva a avaliação da dor para melhor expressar o quadro doloroso. / Introduction: The Chronic Pelvic Pain (CPP) is a social problem, with high prevalence, affecting women in reproductive age. Increasingly, has been emphasised the importance of investigating appropriate instruments for evaluation of pain in clinical practice, by facilitating the choice of the best method to make more complete the evaluation in measuring intensity aspects of chronic pain. Therefore, the objective of this study is to correlate different painful intensity assessment tools, the numeric scale (NS), visual analogue scale (VAS) and algometry pressure, in women with CPP, in order to identify the instrument that best expresses the pain. Methods: were evaluated by the gynecologist eighty women referred to the Gynecology and Obstetrics service, Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre (HCPA), thirty three women had some aspect of our criteria for not inclusion. The study included forty seven patients, twenty patients had endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy and twenty seven patients had other gynecological causes. For the analyses in this study we used a road map for anamnesis whose data related to the CPP was collected, such as diagnosis, treatment, symptoms and pain locations. In addition, pain scores were classified according to intensity, through the pain scales (NS and VAS), based on self-report instruments of individual and algometry, to verify the pressure pain threshold of the patients. Statistically, the agreement between scales was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the association between the scales with the algometer were evaluated by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, the level of significance adopted was 5% (P<0,05). Results: Study participants had an average age of 38.3 ± 7.6 years old. In the statistical analysis, we used ICC reporting instruments of perception painful I mean, between NS and VAS regarding pain (0,992), in dysmenorrhoea (1.00) and Dyspareunia (0.996), and we found excellent correlation between scales, with P<0,01. The associations of algometria with the scales were moderate and inverses, showing differences statistically significant, the higher the score NS and VAS in relation to Dyspareunia smaller values in algometer, except in points LA1 and LA2 on both sides. Indeed, there were also inverse association of scales NS and VAS on dysmenorrhea, in point LAB2 in the right side and inverse association in point PS in the right side with scale VAS of pain, with statistically significant differences. Conclusion: the scales are effective instruments for evaluation of pain, and may be used both in NS and VAS at painful intensity evaluation. In the evaluation of women with CPP should be used the algometry pressure associated with NS or VAS, instruments inversely proportional, reliable and sensitive, making less subjective pain assessment to better express the pain.