Effectiveness of non-pharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio,Helena Frawley,Kari Bø,Mélanie Morin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.08.006
2024-08-12
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological, conservative therapies for women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Data sources: A 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 criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a non-pharmacological, conservative therapy to inert (e.g., placebo, usual care) or non-conservative (e.g., 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 (e.g., electrophysical agents, manual stretching). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: All 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 post-intervention scores for data that included similar interventions and outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMD) 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 PEDro scale and the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Results: Of 5776 retrieved studies, 38 RCTs 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 non-conservative treatments in both the short (SMD -1.69, 95% CI -2.54,-0.85; high certainty) and intermediate-terms (SMD -1.82, 95% CI -3.13, -0.52; moderate certainty), while predominantly psychological approaches resulted in no difference in pain intensity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.56, 0.20; moderate certainty) and a slight difference in sexual function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.52,-0.04; moderate certainty). The level of evidence regarding the meta-analysis of the effects of acupuncture on pain intensity (SMD 1.08, 95% CI -1.38, 3.54, non-statistically 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. Conclusions: This systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that multimodal physical therapy is effective in women with CPP with a high certainty of evidence.