(141) MULTIMODAL PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN IN WOMEN – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) significantly burdens both women and society, often leading to adverse cognitive, behavioral, and emotional consequences. Additionally, over 80% of women with CPP may experience sexual dysfunction. Multimodal physiotherapy is well-suited to address these challenges as it incorporates various therapies and modalities that enable the integration of biopsychosocial interventions. However, there is currently a limited understanding of the effectiveness of this approach for CPP, and a comprehensive review of the existing literature is needed. Objective This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of multimodal physiotherapy approaches in women with CPP. Methods Eight electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized-controlled trials targeting women with CPP without a defined pathology, disease, or event (e.g., cancer, infection). Trials comparing multimodal physiotherapy (i.e., comprehensive approaches within the scope of physiotherapy, involving several different interventions, such as education, pelvic floor muscle exercises, massage, self-management strategies) to inert (e.g., placebo, waitlist, usual care) or non-conservative treatment (e.g., surgical, pharmacological) were included. All study data were aggregated, and effects on pain intensity, sexual measures (e.g., sexual function, sexual distress), and psychological function (e.g., anxiety, depression) were analyzed for the purpose of this abstract. Meta-analyses (using a random effects model) were conducted whenever possible (≥ 5 studies), considering post-treatment value scores. The obtained standardized mean difference values were converted to a mean difference (MD) on a 0-10 pain scale. The value of 1.1 points was interpreted as a minimal, clinically meaningful threshold for between-group differences. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the PEDro scale, and the certainty of the evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Results Seven trials investigating multimodal physiotherapy approaches were included and most of them (n = 5) had moderate-to-high methodological quality. Meta-analyses revealed that multimodal physiotherapy resulted in significantly lower pain intensity compared to inert or non-conservative treatment at both the post-treatment (MD −2.87 [95% CI −4.32, −1.45]; high certainty of evidence as assessed with the GRADE) and 12-36 weeks follow-up (MD −3.09 [95% CI −5.32, −0.88]; moderate certainty of evidence). Meaningful effects (MD ≥ 1.1) for between-group differences favoring multimodal physiotherapy were observed regardless of the comparator (inert or non-conservative treatment). Sexual measures were investigated in 4 trials, but only three used validated outcomes assessing sexual function and/or sexual distress. These demonstrated the superiority of multimodal physiotherapy over control treatment. Similarly, four trials investigated the effects on psychological function. Of the three that provided between-group comparisons, multimodal physiotherapy showed superior results over the control group for at least one psychological outcome measured. Conclusions The findings suggest that multimodal physiotherapy approaches are effective for women with CPP, with a high certainty of evidence for significant and clinically meaningful lower pain intensity at post-treatment compared to inert or non-conservative treatment. Therefore, this approach should be offered as a first-line, non-pharmacological, conservative treatment option. Disclosure No.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".