Key takeaways:
- A Delphi procedure was used to establish a standardized definition and diagnostic criteria for primary dysmenorrhea.
- Experts agreed that “primary” refers to pain without identifiable pathology and does not require occurrence within a set time after menarche.
- Conditions such as PID, STIs, congenital anomalies, adenomyosis, and fibroids must be excluded before diagnosing primary dysmenorrhea.
- Pelvic examination and systemic symptoms are not required for diagnosis, and no minimum pain duration is necessary.
- Endometriosis should be considered but cannot be fully ruled out, with diagnosis recommended when suspicion for endometriosis is low.
Research published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology has established a definition and diagnostic criteria for primary dysmenorrhea through a Delphi procedure.1
Increased research addressing menstrual complaints has been conducted in recent years, with dysmenorrhea being one of the most common complaints in 34% to 94% of patients. Significant adverse impacts on quality of life have been reported from the condition, including rates of school absenteeism as high as 57%.2 However, consensus has not been reached about the criteria of primary dysmenorrhea.1
“Overall, an accepted clear definition of primary dysmenorrhea promotes uniformity in diagnosis, treatment, and research, ultimately benefiting patients worldwide with primary dysmenorrhea,” wrote investigators.
Delphi procedure used to build expert consensus
The study was conducted to develop a standardized definition and diagnostic criteria for primary dysmenorrhea. This was accomplished using a Delphi procedure, an iterative methodology used to obtain expert opinions and reach a consensus in situations with insufficient or contradictory information.
This was a modified Delphi procedure conducted digitally. During the first round, a systematic review was conducted to obtain definitions of primary dysmenorrhea for the questionnaire. The questionnaire included multiple rounds, allowing participants to reflect on the results of prior rounds.
A topic was considered finalized when it reached consensus. Topics that failed to reach consensus continued to be discussed in the next round alongside anonymous expert comments. Questions for subsequent rounds were developed based on answers from the previous round.
Expert participation and evaluation criteria
During the systematic review, articles providing definitions of primary dysmenorrhea were obtained from PubMed. A single author performed the search, while 2 authors completed screening. Study characteristics and primary dysmenorrhea definitions were extracted from the included articles.
Experts from the Dutch Gynecological Adolescent Care Network participated in the first round’s focus group discussion through videoconferencing. Content in the questionnaire covered nomenclature, inclusion of systemic symptoms, definition based on severity and duration of pain, diagnostic evaluation with pelvic examination, and imaging.