Effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for women with 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 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 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 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSION: This systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that multimodal physical therapy is effective in women with chronic pelvic pain with a high certainty of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".