Biofeedback therapy for chronic pelvic pain syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). METHODS: From November 2001 to April 2002, patients visiting the Urological Outpatient Clinic of this Hospital were evaluated by means of the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and classified by the NIH classification standard. Sixty-two patients of CPPS category III were involved in this study. All patients had been treated by conventional approaches such as antibiotics and alpha-blockers for more than half a year without any improvement. The expressed prostatic secretion results were as follows: WBC 5 to 9/high power field, lipid + approximately +++ and bacterial culture negative. Their NIH-CPSI were 12 approximately 40. All the 62 cases complained of micturitional irritation (frequency, urgency, splitted stream and sense of residual urine), 32 cases, of pain or discomfort at the testicular, penile, scrotal, pelvic or rectal region and 13 cases, of white secretion-dripping. The patients were treated by the Urostym Biofeedback equipment (Laborie Co., Canada) 5 times a week for 2 weeks with a stimulus intensity of 15 mA approximatley 23 mA and duration of 20 minutes. RESULTS: Sixty patients were significantly improved or cured, while no significant improvement in the remaining 2. No apparent side effect was observed. The NIH-CPSI dropped to 6 to 14 with an average reduction of 21 (P<0.01). In the 60 improved cases, pain was relieved after 2 approximately 3 treatment courses and other symptoms disappeared after 4 approximately 5 courses. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback therapy is a safe and effective treatment for CPPS. Large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and to explore the mechanism of action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".