Chronic pelvic pain: A meta-analytic review

Linda McGowan, David Clark‐Carter, Marian Pitts
In: Psychology & Health · 1998 · vol. 13(5) , pp. 937–951 · doi:10.1080/08870449808407441 · W2159342278
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 25 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

A meta-analysis of 22 studies found no psychological differences between women with chronic pelvic pain and identified pathology versus those without, but confirmed elevated depression and anxiety in all chronic pelvic pain patients compared to pain-free controls.

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

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women of reproductive age is a common complaint; for many women no identifiable pathology can be found. Research has suggested that women who have chronic pelvic pain without obvious pathology differ on a range of psychological characteristics, such as anxiety and depression, compared with those with identified pathology. A meta-analysis of 22 studies was undertaken to clarify these issues. Results showed that there were no significant differences on a range of psychological variables between women who were identified, via laparoscopy and clinical judgement, as having organic disorders and those who were not so identified. When women with chronic pelvic pain were compared with pain-free groups a profile of elevated depression, anxiety, neuroticism and psychopathology was found which is consistent with findings from studies of other painful conditions.

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 (72)

Cited by (25)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK