There is a broad consensus in recent research that only 5-10%* of chronic prostatitis cases are bacterial and, further, that genuine bacterial prostatitis is usually accompanied by other evidence of Urinary Tract Infection. Furthermore, multiple studies have demonstrated that the presence of bacteria (as found by PCR, not ordinary culture) in the prostate is not necessarily causal. That is, men with bacteria are no more likely to have symptoms than men without.
*I accept Webslave's figure of 5-8% [derived from research] but cite the 10% as a "devil's advocate" upper limit.
So it's clear that ANY practitioner who diagnoses "bacterial prostatitis" in substantially more than 10% of chronic cases (particularly in the absence of UTI infection) ... is operating under some kind of a systematic bias.
THE FOLLOWING LINK EXPLAINS WHY:
In the past, a number of factors combined to fuel the INCORRECT assumption that bacteria was"suspect #1" in cases where no other cause of Chronic Pelvic Pain could be identified:
viewtopic.php?p=4969#4969
IF BACTERIAL INFECTION IS NO LONGER THE "MISSING LINK" EXPLANATION FOR "PROSTATITIS / CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN", IS THERE SOME MORE LIKELY EXPLANATION?
The good news is yes! And the further good news is that many are now being treated successfullyl!
viewtopic.php?p=3045
WHAT'S WRONG WITH CONTINUING TO TAKE ANTIBIOTICS FOR SYMPTOMATIC RELIEF AND / OR IN HOPE THAT THIS WILL CURE ME?
My tests showed no evidence of urinary tract infection or any other indication that might put me in the 5-10% minority of chronic cases that are truly bacterial. But antibiotics were the first thing that seemed to relieve my symptoms. I am desperate and willing to try anything that might rid me of this condition. Please explain why continuing use of antibiotics is not the way.
The Answer
viewtopic.php?p=5269#5269
ALSO RECOMMENDED :
Is chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome a result of an active bacterial infection?