Effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Małgorzata Starzec‐Proserpio, Helena Frawley, Kari Bø, Mélanie Morin
In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2024 · vol. 232(1) , pp. 42–71 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.08.006 · PMID:39142363 · W4401555671
review OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 6 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of various nonpharmacological conservative therapies for managing chronic pelvic pain in women.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for women with CPP.Data sourcesA systematic search of electronic databases (Amed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscuss, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed in January 2023, and updated in December 2023.Study eligibility criteriaRandomized controlled trials comparing a nonpharmacological conservative therapy to inert (eg, placebo, usual care) or nonconservative (eg, surgical, pharmacological) treatment were included. Conservative therapies of interest to this review were: multimodal physical therapy, predominantly psychological approaches, acupuncture, and other tissue-based monotherapies (eg, electrophysical agents, manual stretching).Study appraisal and synthesis methodsAll study data were aggregated, and analyses of the included studies were performed. Effects on pain; sexual measures; psychological and physical function; health-related quality of life; symptom severity/bother; pelvic floor muscle function and morphometry; perceived improvement; and adverse events were analyzed. Meta-analyses (random effects model) were conducted using postintervention scores for data that included similar interventions and outcomes. Standardized mean differences were calculated. A narrative summary of findings that could not be included in the meta-analysis is provided. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.ResultsOf 5776 retrieved studies, 38 randomized controlled trials including 2168 women (mean age 35.1±8.6) were included. Meta-analyses revealed that multimodal physical therapy resulted in lower pain intensity compared to inert or nonconservative treatments in both the short (standardized mean difference -1.69, 95% confidence interval -2.54, -0.85; high certainty) and intermediate-terms (standardized mean difference -1.82, 95% confidence interval -3.13, -0.52; moderate certainty), while predominantly psychological approaches resulted in no difference in pain intensity (standardized mean difference -0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.56, 0.20; moderate certainty) and a slight difference in sexual function (standardized mean difference -0.28, 95% confidence interval -0.52, -0.04; moderate certainty). The level of evidence regarding the meta-analysis of the effects of acupuncture on pain intensity (standardized mean difference 1.08, 95% confidence interval -1.38, 3.54, nonstatistically significant results in favor of control treatment) precluded any statement of certainty. A limited number of trials investigated individual tissue-based monotherapies, providing a restricted body of evidence.ConclusionThis systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that multimodal physical therapy is effective in women with chronic pelvic pain with a high certainty of evidence.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (95)

Cited by (9)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK