Effectiveness of non-pharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio, Helena Frawley, Kari Bø, Mélanie Morin
{"title":"Effectiveness of non-pharmacological conservative therapies for chronic pelvic pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio, Helena Frawley, Kari Bø, Mélanie Morin","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological, conservative therapies for women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that multimodal physical therapy is effective in women with CPP with a high certainty of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.08.006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

非药物保守疗法对女性慢性盆腔疼痛的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:评估非药物保守疗法对慢性盆腔疼痛妇女的疗效:评估非药物保守疗法对慢性盆腔疼痛(CPP)妇女的疗效:于 2023 年 1 月对电子数据库(Amed、CINAHL、PsycINFO、SportDiscuss、Medline、PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)进行了系统检索,并于 2023 年 12 月进行了更新:研究资格标准:纳入比较非药物保守疗法与惰性疗法(如安慰剂、常规护理)或非保守疗法(如手术、药物)的随机对照试验(RCT)。本综述所关注的保守疗法包括:多模式物理疗法、以心理治疗为主的方法、针灸和其他基于组织的单一疗法(如电物理药剂、徒手拉伸):对所有研究数据进行汇总,并对纳入的研究进行分析。分析了对疼痛、性功能指标、心理和生理功能、健康相关生活质量、症状严重程度/烦扰、盆底肌肉功能和形态、感知改善和不良事件的影响。对于包含类似干预措施和结果的数据,采用干预后评分进行了元分析(随机效应模型)。计算了标准化平均差异(SMD)。对未能纳入荟萃分析的研究结果进行了叙述性总结。证据质量采用 PEDro 量表进行评估,证据的确定性采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)标准:在检索到的 5776 项研究中,共纳入了 38 项 RCT,包括 2168 名女性(平均年龄为 35.1±8.6)。元分析显示,与惰性或非保守疗法相比,多模式物理疗法在短期(SMD -1.69, 95% CI -2.54,-0.85; 高度确定性)和中期(SMD -1.82, 95% CI -3.13, -0.52;中度确定性),而以心理治疗为主的方法导致疼痛强度无差异(SMD -0.18,95% CI -0.56,0.20;中度确定性),性功能略有差异(SMD -0.28,95% CI -0.52,-0.04;中度确定性)。针灸对疼痛强度影响的荟萃分析(SMD 1.08,95% CI -1.38, 3.54,无统计学意义,结果有利于对照治疗)的证据水平排除了任何确定性声明。有限的几项试验调查了基于单个组织的单一疗法,提供的证据有限:该系统综述和荟萃分析表明,多模式物理疗法对患有 CPP 的妇女有效,证据的确定性较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信