Efficacy and Safety of Drug Combinations for Chronic Pelvic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain with various etiologies and mechanisms affects men and women and is a major challenge. Monotherapy is often unsuccessful for chronic pelvic pain, and combinations of different classes of medications are frequently prescribed, with the expectation of improved outcomes. Although a number of combination trials for chronic pelvic pain have been reported, we are not aware of any systematic reviews of the available evidence on combination drug therapy for chronic pelvic pain. OBJECTIVE: We have developed a protocol for a systematic review to evaluate available evidence of the efficacy and safety of drug combinations for chronic pelvic pain. METHODS: This systematic review will involve a detailed search of randomized controlled trials investigating drug combinations to treat chronic pelvic pain in adults. The databases searched will include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome will be pain relief measured using validated scoring tools. Secondary outcomes, where reported, will include the following: adverse events, serious adverse events, sexual function, quality of life, and depression and anxiety. Methodological quality of each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: The systematic review defined by this protocol is expected to synthesize available good quality evidence on combination drug therapy in chronic pelvic pain, which may help guide future research and treatment choices for patients and their health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide a clearer understanding of the efficacy and safety of combination pharmacological therapy for chronic pelvic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020192231; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=192231. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/21909.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".