Comparison of combined hormonal vaginal ring and low dose combined oral hormonal pill for the treatment of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain: a randomised trial

Khushboo Priya, Priya K, Rajaram S, Shalini Rajaram, Goel N, Neerja Goel
European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2016 · vol. 207 , pp. 141–146 · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.026 · PMID:27863271 · W2554187281
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 9 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This randomized trial compared the effectiveness of a combined hormonal vaginal ring and a low-dose combined oral hormonal pill in treating idiopathic chronic pelvic pain.

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

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and acceptability of combined hormonal vaginal ring with combined oral hormonal pill in women with idiopathic chronic pelvic pain.Study designRandomised prospective interventional trial conducted in 60 women with idiopathic chronic pelvic pain. Women were randomised into two groups of 30 each. In each group, treatment was given for 84 days using either combined vaginal ring or combined oral hormonal pill. Hormonal vaginal ring releases 15mcg of ethinyl estradiol and 120mcg of the etonogestrel per day while the hormonal pill contained 30mcg of ethinyl estradiol and 150mcg of levonorgestrel. There was no ring or pill free week. After every 28 days, pain relief was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS), and verbal rating score (VRS) calculated by summing dysmenorrhea, non-cyclic pelvic pain (NCCP) and deep dyspareunia scores. Side effects, compliance, satisfaction, and user acceptability were also measured. Data was analyzed using various parametric and non-parametric tests.ResultsReduction in mean VAS score at end of treatment in ring group was 6.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.45-7.01; p<0.001) as compared to 5.53 in pill group (95% CI, 4.83-6.23; p<0.001). Reduction in mean VRS score was 5.63 in ring users (95% CI, 4.84-6.42; p<0.001) versus 4.36 in pill users (95% CI, 3.63-5.10; p<0.001). A significantly higher persistent relief in NCPP score was observed in vaginal ring group as compared to oral pill group at end of one month after stopping treatment. Compliance, satisfaction, and user acceptability were higher in ring users (80%) than pill users (70%) and a higher incidence of nausea was seen in pill group.ConclusionPresent study demonstrates for first time that both vaginal and oral hormonal therapy are effective in treatment of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain and vaginal ring may be a better choice with higher satisfaction rate and fewer side effects.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Chronic Pain Contraceptive Devices, Female Contraceptive Devices, Female Contraceptives, Oral, Combined Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal Pelvic Pain Adolescent Adult Cardiovascular Diseases Cardiovascular Diseases Cardiovascular Diseases Cardiovascular Diseases Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Chronic Pain Contraceptives, Oral, Combined Contraceptives, Oral, Combined Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal

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 (32)

Cited by (9)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-31T06:09:14.520117+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:20:43.714878+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK