Search

Background: Females with persistent pelvic pain (PPP) report great variability in the treatments recommended to them despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that aim to standardise care. A clear consensus for the best practice care for PPP is required. Objective: To identify and summarise treatment recommendations across CPGs for the management of PPP, and appraise their quality. Search strategy: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, EmCare, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection and relevant guideline databases were searched from their inception to June 2021. Selection criteria: Included CPGs were those for the management of urogynaecological conditions in adult females published in English, of any publication date, and endorsed by a professional organisation or society. Data collection and analysis: We screened 1379 records and included 20 CPGs. CPG quality was assessed using The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool. Descriptive synthesis compiled treatment recommendations across CPGs. Main results: The CPGs for seven conditions provided 270 individual recommendations. On quality appraisal, guidelines on average scored ‘excellent’ for the domains ‘scope and purpose’ (80.6%, SD = 13.3) and ‘clarity and presentation’ (74.4%, SD = 12.0); for other domains, average scores were satisfactory or poor. Four guidelines (for Endometriosis: NICE, RANZCOG and ESHRE; for polycystic ovary syndrome: Teede et al. 2018, International Evidence Based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) were deemed recommended for use. Recommendations were most frequent for pharmaceutical and surgical interventions. Recommendations were variable for psychological, physiotherapy and other conservative interventions. Conclusions: The quality of CPGs for PPP is generally poor. Several CPGs endorse the consideration of biopsychosocial elements of PPP. Yet most recommend pharmaceutical, surgical and other biomedical interventions. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Cognitive flexibility can be thought of as the ability to effectively adapt one's cognitive and behavioural strategies in response to changing task or environmental demands. To substantiate the common inference that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility provide ‘different windows into the same room’, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility are related in healthy adults. Ten databases and relevant grey literature were searched from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to. Twenty-one articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. A multi-level random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship (0.05, 95% CI = −0.00 to 0.10). Random-effects meta-analyses raised the possibility that the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Trail Making Test – part B (time) may be related (0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.31). We conclude that the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility is not large enough to be considered convincing evidence for the two assessment approaches sharing construct validity. These results have clear implications for assessing and interpreting cognitive flexibility research and clinical practice Refereed/Peer-reviewed

usc Objective: Cognitive flexibility has been previously described as the ability to adjust cognitive and behavioral strategies in response to changing contextual demands. Cognitive flexibility is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires and performance on neuropsychological tests in research and clinical practice. A common assumption among researchers and clinicians is that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility assess the same or similar constructs, but the extent of the relationship between these two assessment approaches in clinical cohorts remains unknown. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical samples. Method: We searched 10 databases and relevant gray literature (e.g., other databases and pearling) from inception to October 2020 and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Eleven articles including 405 participants satisfied our eligibility criteria. Results: A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility (0.01, 95% CI [−0.16 to 0.18]). Individual random-effects meta-analyses between 12 different tests pairs also found no relationship. Conclusion: Based on our results, it is clear that the two assessment approaches of cognitive flexibility provide independent information—they do not assess the same construct. These findings have important ramifications for future research and clinical practice—there is a need to reconsider what constructs self-report and neuropsychological tests of “cognitive flexibility” actually assess, and avoid the interchangeable use of these assessments in clinical samples. Refereed/Peer-reviewed