4.6 Article

Prevalence, symptom impact and predictors of chronic prostatitis-like symptoms in Canadian males aged 16-19 years

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 103, 期 8, 页码 1080-1084

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08157.x

关键词

prostatitis; adolescent; catastrophizing; quality of life

资金

  1. NIH/NIDDK CPCRN [DK065174]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To estimate the prevalence and examine the extent that pain, urinary symptoms, depression and pain catastrophizing predict the quality of life (QoL) in Canadian male adolescents, as the prevalence and impact of chronic prostatitis (CP)-like symptoms in adolescents is unknown. Participants completed the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), the Patient Health Questionnaire-depression screen (PHQ-D), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). CP-like case identification was based on NIH-CPSI report of pain/discomfort in perineum and/or with ejaculation and NIH-CPSI total pain score (0-20) of >= 4 (mild) and >= 8 (moderate-severe). The point prevalence was estimated and regressions used to examine predictors of diminished QoL gathered from the NIH-CPSI. The prevalence of at least mild CP-like symptoms in 264 Canadian adolescents aged 16-19 years (mean age 17.5, sd 1.1) was 8.3%, with 3% reporting moderate-severe CP-like symptoms. Pain, urinary symptoms, depression and catastrophizing were correlated with diminished QoL. Additionally, catastrophizing predicted diminished QoL when the variance of pain, urinary symptoms and depression were simultaneously considered in the analysis. Similar to that reported by older cohorts, these data provide the first point-prevalence estimate of CP-like symptoms in adolescents. These findings suggest increased vigilance to a potential diagnosis of adolescent CP syndrome and indicate that psychological features (i.e. catastrophizing) are significant in diminished QoL. Adolescent male chronic pelvic pain is an important and understudied area for future investigations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据