ObjectiveTo (i) describe the proportion of children presenting with abdominal pain diagnosed by the GP as functional abdominal pain (GPFAP); (ii) evaluate the association between patient and disease characteristics and GPFAP; (iii) describe diagnostic management by the GP in children presenting with abdominal pain, and (iv) evaluate whether children with GPFAP fulfill diagnostic criteria for functional abdominal pain (FAP) as described in current literature: chronic abdominal pain (CAP) and the Rome III criteria (PRC-III) for abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingGeneral practices in the Netherlands.Subjects305 children aged 4–17 years consulting for abdominal pain.Main outcome measuresGPFAP, CAP, FGIDs.Results89.2% of children were diagnosed with GPFAP. Headaches and bloating were positively associated with GPFAP whereas fever and > 3 red flag symptoms were inversely associated. Additional diagnostic tests were performed in 26.8% of children. Less than 50% of all children with GPFAP fulfilled criteria for CAP and FGIDs; in 47.9% of patients the duration of symptoms at presentation was less than three months.ConclusionsIn almost 90% of children included in this study the GP suspected no organic cause for the abdominal pain. GPs diagnose FAP in children without alarm symptoms and order diagnostic testing in one out of four children presenting with abdominal pain. No difference was found in GPs’ management between children with a diagnosis of GPFAP and other diagnoses. Only about half of the children with a GP diagnosis of FAP fulfilled time-criteria of FAP as defined in the literature.

Objective To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training and watchful waiting on pelvic floor symptoms in a primary care population of women aged 55 years and over with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting Dutch primary care.Participants Women aged 55 years or over with symptomatic mild prolapse (leading edge above the hymen) were identified by screening. Exclusion criteria were current prolapse treatment or treatment in the previous year, malignancy of pelvic organs, current treatment for another gynaecological disorder, severe/terminal illness, impaired mobility, cognitive impairment, and insufficient command of the Dutch language.Interventions Pelvic floor muscle training versus watchful waiting. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in bladder, bowel, and pelvic floor symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), three months after the start of treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in condition specific and general quality of life, sexual function, degree of prolapse, pelvic floor muscle function, and patients' perceived change in symptoms. ResultsOf the 287 women who were randomised to pelvic floor muscle training (n=145) or watchful waiting (n=142), 250 (87%) completed follow-up. Participants in the intervention group improved by (on average) 9.1 (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 15.4) points more on the PFDI-20 than did participants in the watchful waiting group (P=0.005). Of women in the pelvic floor muscle training group, 57% (82/145) reported an improvement in overall symptoms from the start of the study compared with 13% (18/142) in the watchful waiting group (P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes showed no significant difference between the groups.Conclusions Although pelvic floor muscle training led to a significantly greater improvement in PFDI-20 score, the difference between the groups was below the presumed level of clinical relevance (15 points). Nevertheless, 57% of the participants in the intervention group reported an improvement of overall symptoms. More studies are needed to identify factors related to success of pelvic floor muscle training and to investigate long term effects.Trial registration Dutch Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl) identifier: NTR2047.

In older women with symptomatic prolapse, there was no significant difference between pessary treatment and PFMT in reducing pelvic floor symptoms, but specific prolapse-related symptoms did improve more with pessary treatment. Pessary treatment was preferable in the cost-effectiveness analysis. When counseling women for prolapse treatment it should, however, be taken into account that pessary fitting fails in a considerable portion of women and that pessary treatment was associated with more side effects compared with PFMT.