[Psychometric validation of Convergence criteria PP]. / Validation psychométrique des critères de Convergences PP.

CONTEXT: The PP Convergences criteria group together 10 of the most significant clinical criteria for sensitization in the context of chronic pelvic pain. They are the result of a consensus of experts and represent to date the only clinical evaluation guide to identify patients with pelvic perineal pain in whom a pelvic sensitization component can be evoked. OBJECTIVE: This work concerns the psychometric validation of these criteria. The aim is to answer 3 questions: 1) is the instrument reliable (i.e., sensitive, specific and accurate)?; 2) can we define a screening score for pelvic-perineal pain by sensitization from the CPP criteria?; 3) can combinations of criteria be defined to predict pelvic-perineal sensitization from the CPP criteria? METHODOLOGY AND SUBJECTS: In total, 308 patients with pelviperineal pain were recruited during their medical consultation. PROCEDURE: Fifteen expert physicians were asked to judge the presence or absence of the 10 CPP criteria and to make a diagnosis of the presence or absence of pelviperineal sensitization in their patient. RESULTS: ROC curve analysis indicated that a score of 5 was the closest to a perfect score with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 87%. They also indicate that the CPP criteria have a very good sensitivity (97%) and specificity (91%) and present globally a good reproducibility on all the criteria (Kappa>0.6). Finally, the statistical analyses reveal that the most discriminating criterion for predicting sensitization is Q8 (pain persisting after sexual activity). CONCLUSION: The CPP criteria represent a very good screening tool for pelvic sensitization. The score of 5 corresponds to the score at which the patient has sufficient clinical criteria to be classified as sensitized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

[Pelvi-perineal chronic pain, urgent demands of care and decision-making]. / Douleurs pelvipérinéales chroniques, demandes urgentes de soins et prise de décision.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients suffering from pelvi-perineal chronic pain express urgent, even vital, demands of care. The objective was to compare the profile and the psychological functioning of the patients, who have shown an imperious demand of care, in that of the patients who do not have an imperious demand of care. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From the medical consultations for chronic pelviperineal pain, we realized a comparative study including 26 patients (experimental group) expressing an urgent demand of care (i.e., patients who, during the last 3months, called an emergency service concerning the pains for which they consult in the service) and 28 patients (control group) without an urgent demand of care (i.e., patient who, during the last 3months, did not call an emergency service concerning the pains for which they consult in the service). All the patients were tested through a cognitive task of decision-making (Iowa Gambling Task) and through explicit measures of pain and its main psychological associated factors (anxiety, depression, impulsivity an catastrophism). RESULTS: In the first place, the patients from the experimental group possess decision-making abilities equivalent to the patients of the control group; however, both groups of patients show, in the beginning of the test, a deficit in the decision-making (F(4.208)=3.4116; P=.009). Secondly, the measures to questionnaires reveal that the patients of the control group have less severe scores in the scales of depression (t(52)=-2.068; P<04), catastrophism (amplification : t(52)=-3.069; P<0035; powerlessness: t(52)=-2.866, P<.006) and impulsivity (positive urgency: t(52)=-2.246, P<029; lack of premeditation: t(52)=-2.175, P<035) than the patients of the experimental group. CONCLUSION: The use of explicit measures (questionnaire) and implicit measures (experimental task) allowed to objectify more precisely the differences between the chronic pain patients in urgent demand of care and the other chronic pain patients. This psychological specificity obliges us to approach differently the caring of these patients in particular by proposing adapted cognitivo-behavioral techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.