You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
An extended evaluation of a dedicated male chronic pelvic pain clinic within a sexual health service
  1. Sophie Kenyon1,
  2. Megan Crofts2,
  3. Paddy Horner2,3
  1. 1 University of Newcastle Medical School, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK
  2. 2 Bristol Sexual Health Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
  3. 3 School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paddy Horner, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Rd, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK; Paddy.Horner{at}bristol.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2014-051770

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We performed a follow on service evaluation of the male pelvic pain clinic1 undertaken by PH for patients who attended during 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2013. Notes were available for 24/28 (86%) patients. Patients were managed as detailed in the recent ‘How to’ article.2

    In 2012, the mean age was 36.9 years, mean National Institutes of Health – Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index score 24.7 at presentation and 15.2 at final review, with 15 (62.5%) having a >25% improvement in symptom score which was similar to our 2010 evaluation. The proportion of patients receiving antibiotics …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SK: Reviewed the patient notes and collated data, wrote the initial draft of letter and aided submission process. MC: Supervised data collection and drafting of article and completed submission process. PH: Reviewed the final draft of letter and data.

    • Competing interests

    • Ethics approval As this is a service evaluation, no ethics committee review is required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.