Biopsychosocial approaches to treat female chronic pelvic pain

Jim Thornton, Emeritus professor obstetrics & gynaecology, university of Nottingham, UK

Nick Brown, Department of Psychology, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

Corresponding author: jim.thornton@nottingham.ac.uk

Dear Dr. Aris Papageorghiou,

We read the recent systematic review of biopsychosocial approaches to treat female chronic pelvic pain (October 2024) [1] with interest. The fact that three included studies had been conducted by the same research group, and differed only in the type and focus of goal setting [2, 3, 4], inspired us to read them carefully.

All three studies contain multiple reported mean values, for variables which are normally reported as integers, which appear to be impossible: so-called GRIM inconsistencies [5]. We have posted our concerns on the peer review website PubPeer.com,https://pubpeer.com/publications/A182FA06122C1D2C38E819415EC155\#1, https://pubpeer.com/publications/16A4EA3222C67B2E38AD0790F38E43 and https://pubpeer.com/publications/7B0A50B193748DEF5196E10529FC76\#1 and asked the editors of Maturitas and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation to investigate.

Although such inconsistencies can be due to typos, or other minor data errors, the occurrence of so many, in three different randomised controlled trials by the same investigator group, raises serious questions about the integrity of the data and, hence, the validity of the results in these articles.

We suggest that readers interpret the reliability of these three studies, and hence also the systematic review, which is partly based on them, with caution unless the respective journal investigations indicate no cause for concern. We also think it essential that the authors should provide their data for reanalysis, to determine the origin of these inconsistencies.

Jim Thornton, Emeritus professor obstetrics & gynaecology, iniversity of Nottingham, UK

Nick Brown, Department of Psychology, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden