Urologic Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome Flares: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Peer-Reviewed Flare Literature.

PURPOSE: We sought to systematically review and summarize the peer-reviewed literature on urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome flares, including their terminology, manifestation, perceived triggers, management and prevention strategies, impact on quality of life, and insights into pathophysiologic mechanisms, as a foundation for future empirical research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 6 medical databases for articles related to any aspect of symptom exacerbations for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. A total of 1486 abstracts and 398 full-text articles were reviewed, and data were extracted by at least 2 individuals. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 59 articles, including 36 qualitative, cross-sectional, or case-control; 15 cohort-based; and 8 experimental articles. The majority of studies described North American patients with confirmed diagnoses. "Flare" was a commonly used term, but additional terminology (eg, exacerbation) was also used. Most flares involved significant increases in pain intensity, but less data were available on flare frequency and duration. Painful, frequent, long-lasting, and unpredictable flares were highly impactful, even over and above participants' nonflare symptoms. A large number of perceived triggers (eg, diet, stress) and management/prevention strategies (eg, analgesics, thermal therapy, rest) were proposed by participants, but few had empirical support. In addition, few studies explored underlying biologic mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that flares are painful and impactful, but otherwise poorly understood in terms of manifestation (frequency and duration), triggers, treatment, prevention, and pathophysiology. These summary findings provide a foundation for future flare-related research and highlight gaps that warrant additional empirical studies.

Measuring stress before and during pregnancy: a review of population-based studies of obstetric outcomes.

Mounting evidence from clinic and convenience samples suggests that stress is an important predictor of adverse obstetric outcomes. Using a proposed theoretical framework, this review identified and synthesized the population-based literature on the measurement of stress prior to and during pregnancy in relation to obstetric outcomes. Population-based, peer-reviewed empirical articles that examined stress prior to or during pregnancy in relation to obstetric outcomes were identified in the PubMed and PsycInfo databases. Articles were evaluated to determine the domain(s) of stress (environmental, psychological, and/or biological), period(s) of stress (preconception and/or pregnancy), and strength of the association between stress and obstetric outcomes. Thirteen studies were evaluated. The identified studies were all conducted in developed countries. The majority of studies examined stress only during pregnancy (n = 10); three examined stress during both the preconception and pregnancy periods (n = 3). Most studies examined the environmental domain (e.g. life events) only (n = 9), two studies examined the psychological domain only, and two studies examined both. No study incorporated a biological measure of stress. Environmental stressors before and during pregnancy were associated with worse obstetric outcomes, although some conflicting findings exist. Few population-based studies have examined stress before or during pregnancy in relation to obstetric outcomes. Although considerable variation exists in the measurement of stress across studies, environmental stress increased the risk for poor obstetric outcomes. Additional work using a lifecourse approach is needed to fill the existing gaps in the literature and to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms by which stress impacts obstetric outcomes.