Objective To investigate the correlation between the numerical rating scale, visual analogue scale, and pressure threshold by algometry in women with chronic pelvic pain. Study design This was a cross-sectional study. We included 47 patients with chronic pelvic pain. All subjects underwent a pain assessment that used three different methods and were divided according to the cause of pain (endometriosis versus non-endometriosis). Moreover, we assessed the agreement between the scales (visual, analogue and algometry) using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The ICC for the numeric rating scale and the visual analogue scale regarding pain (0.992), dysmenorrhea (1.00) and dyspareunia (0.996) were strong. The agreement between the scales was excellent ( p ≤0.01). The correlation between algometry and the scales showed a moderate and inverse association, and this correlation was statistically significant: as the scores on the numeric rating scale and the visual analogue scale regarding dyspareunia increased, the algometry thresholds decreased. Conclusions The assessment of women with chronic pelvic pain should combine pressure algometry and the numeric rating scale or the visual analogue scale, because of their inverse correlations and satisfactory reliability and sensitivity, to make pain assessment less subjective and more accurate.

BackgroundPrevious studies have associated chronic pelvic pain with a stereotyped pattern of movement and posture, lack of normal body sensations, a characteristic pain distribution. We aimed at evaluating if these postural changes are detectable in baropodometry results in patients with chronic pelvic pain.MethodsWe performed a prospective study in a university hospital. We selected 32 patients suffering from chronic pelvic pain (study group) and 30 women without this pathology (regular gynecological work out - control group). Pain scores and baropodometric analysis were performed.ResultsAs expected, study group presented higher pain scores than control group. Study and control groups presented similar averages for the maximum pressures to the left and right soles as well as soles supports in the forefeet and hind feet. Women suffering from chronic pelvic pain did not present differences in baropodometric analysis when compared to healthy controls.ConclusionsThis data demonstrates that postural abnormalities resulting from CPP could not be demonstrated by baropodometric evaluation. Other postural measures should be addressed to evaluate pelvic pain patients.