Dataset Information

WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care planning for chronic pelvic pain (CPP), an important cause of morbidity amongst women is hampered due to lack of clear collated summaries of its basic epidemiological data. We systematically reviewed worldwide literature on the prevalence of different types of CPP to assess the geographical distribution of data, and to explore sources of variation in its estimates.

Methods

We identified data available from Medline (1966 to 2004), Embase (1980 to 2004), PsycINFO (1887 to 2003), LILACS (1982 to 2004), Science Citation index, CINAHL (January 1980 to 2004) and hand searching of reference lists. Two reviewers extracted data independently, using a piloted form, on participants' characteristics, study quality and rates of CPP. We considered a study to be of high quality (valid) if had at least three of the following features: prospective design, validated measurement tool, adequate sampling method, sample size estimation and response rate >80%. We performed both univariate and multivariate meta-regression analysis to explore heterogeneity of results across studies.

Results

There were 178 studies (459975 participants) in 148 articles. Of these, 106 studies were (124259 participants) on dysmenorrhoea, 54 (35973 participants) on dyspareunia and 18 (301756 participants) on noncyclical pain. There were only 19/95 (20%) less developed and 1/45 (2.2%) least developed countries with relevant data in contrast to 22/43 (51.2%) developed countries. Meta-regression analysis showed that rates of pain varied according to study quality features. There were 40 (22.5%) high quality studies with representative samples. Amongst them, the rate of dysmenorrhoea was 16.8 to 81%, that of dyspareunia was 8 to 21.8%, and that for noncyclical pain was 2.1 to 24%.

Conclusion

There were few valid population based estimates of disease burden due to CPP from less developed countries. The variation in rates of CPP worldwide was due to variable study quality. Where valid data were available, a high disease burden of all types of pelvic pain was found.

SUBMITTER: Latthe P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1550236 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity.

Latthe Pallavi P Latthe Manish M Say Lale L Gülmezoglu Metin M Khan Khalid S KS

BMC public health 20060706

<h4>Background</h4>Health care planning for chronic pelvic pain (CPP), an important cause of morbidity amongst women is hampered due to lack of clear collated summaries of its basic epidemiological data. We systematically reviewed worldwide literature on the prevalence of different types of CPP to assess the geographical distribution of data, and to explore sources of variation in its estimates.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified data available from Medline (1966 to 2004), Embase (1980 to 2004), PsycI ...[more]

PMID: 16824213

Similar Datasets

Project description:Acupuncture is a promising therapy for relieving symptoms in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), which affects >15% of adult men worldwide. The aim of the study was to assess the effects and safety of the use of acupuncture for CP/CPPS. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wang-Fang Database, JCRM, and CiNii were searched from their inception through 30 November 2015. Grey literature databases and websites were also searched. No language limits were applied. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with CP/CPPS treated by acupuncture were included. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools, respectively. Seven trials were included, involving 471 participants. The result of meta-analysis indicated that compared with sham acupuncture (MD: -6.09 [95%CI: -8.12 to -5.68]) and medicine (Levofloxacinand, Ibuprofen, and Tamsulosin) (MD: -4.57 [95%CI: -7.58 to -1.56]), acupuncture was more effective at decreasing the total NIH-CPSI score. Real acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture in improving symptoms (pain, voiding) and quality of life (Qof) domain subscores. Compared to sham acupuncture and medicine, acupuncture appears to be more effective at improving the global assessment. Two trials found that there is no significant difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in decreasing the IPSS score. Acupuncture failed to show more favorable effects in improving both symptoms and the Qof domain compared with medicine. Overall, current evidence supports acupuncture as an effective treatment for CP/CPPS-induced symptoms, particularly in relieving pain. Based on the meta-analysis, acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture in improving symptoms and Qof. Acupuncture might be similar to medicine (Levofloxacinand, Ibuprofen, and Tamsulosin) in its long-term effects, but evidence was limited due to high ROB among included trials as well as potential heterogeneity. Acupuncture is associated with rare and slightly adverse events. Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42015027522.

Project description:ContextAcupuncture is a promising therapy for relieving symptoms in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), which affects 9-16% of adult men worldwide.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for CP/CPPS.Evidence acquisitionNine electronic databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of trials using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Stata 17.0 was used to analyze the data.Evidence synthesisTwelve trials were included. The results of a meta-analysis showed that acupuncture had larger effect sizes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.20, confidence interval or CI [-1.69, -0.71], acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture; SMD = -1.01, CI [-1.63, -0.38], acupuncture compared with medication; SMD = -0.91, CI [-1.29, -0.54], acupuncture plus medication compared with medication) in reducing the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total score. In decreasing NIH-CPSI pain domain score, acupuncture also led to larger effect sizes (SMD = -0.94, CI [-1.18, -0.70], acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture; SMD = -1.04, CI [-1.29, -0.79], acupuncture compared with medication; SMD = -0.85, CI [-1.23, -0.48], acupuncture plus medication compared with medication), whereas the effect sizes in the reduction of NIH-CPSI urinary domain and quality of life domain scores were medium. Compared with sham acupuncture and medication, acupuncture appears to be more effective in improving the global response rate. Results from four trials indicated that acupuncture was better than sham acupuncture in decreasing the International Prostate Symptom Score. No serious adverse effects were found in the acupuncture treatment.ConclusionsCurrent evidence supports acupuncture as an effective treatment for CP/CPPS-induced symptoms, particularly in relieving pain. Comprehensive acupuncture treatment according to individual symptoms should be considered in future clinical practice and trials for CP/CPPS.Patient summaryIn this study, we further verified the efficacy of acupuncture in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, especially in reducing pain.

Project description:BackgroundChronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has been treated with several different interventions with limited success. This meta-analysis aims to review all trials reporting on therapeutic intervention for CP/CPPS using the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).MethodsWe searched Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Pain, Palliative & Supportive Care Trials, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the NIDDK website between 1947 and December 31, 2011 without language or study type restrictions. All RCTs for CP/CPPS lasting at least 6 weeks, with a minimum of 10 participants per arm, and using the NIH-CPSI score, the criterion standard for CP/CPPS, as an outcome measure were included. Data was extracted from each study by two independent reviewers. Gillbraith and I-squared plots were used for heterogeneity testing and Eggers and Peters methods for publication bias. Quality was assessed using a component approach and meta-regression was used to analyze sources of heterogeneity.ResultsMepartricin, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and triple therapy comprised of doxazosin + ibuprofen + thiocolchicoside (DIT) resulted in clinically and statistically significant reduction in NIH-CPSI total score. The same agents and aerobic exercise resulted in clinically and statistically significant NIH-CPSI pain domain score reduction. Acupuncture, DIT, and PTNS were found to produce statistically and clinically significant reductions in the NIH-CPSI voiding domain. A statistically significant placebo effect was found for all outcomes and time analysis showed that efficacy of all treatments increased over time. Alpha-blockers, antibiotics, and combinations of the two failed to show statistically or clinically significant NIH-CPSI reductions.ConclusionResults from this meta-analysis reflect our current inability to effectively manage CP/CPPS. Clinicians and researchers must consider placebo effect and treatment efficacy over time and design studies creatively so we can more fully elucidate the etiology and role of therapeutic intervention in CP/CPPS.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain with various etiologies and mechanisms affects men and women and is a major challenge. Monotherapy is often unsuccessful for chronic pelvic pain, and combinations of different classes of medications are frequently prescribed, with the expectation of improved outcomes. Although a number of combination trials for chronic pelvic pain have been reported, we are not aware of any systematic reviews of the available evidence on combination drug therapy for chronic pelvic pain.ObjectiveWe have developed a protocol for a systematic review to evaluate available evidence of the efficacy and safety of drug combinations for chronic pelvic pain.MethodsThis systematic review will involve a detailed search of randomized controlled trials investigating drug combinations to treat chronic pelvic pain in adults. The databases searched will include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome will be pain relief measured using validated scoring tools. Secondary outcomes, where reported, will include the following: adverse events, serious adverse events, sexual function, quality of life, and depression and anxiety. Methodological quality of each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.ResultsThe systematic review defined by this protocol is expected to synthesize available good quality evidence on combination drug therapy in chronic pelvic pain, which may help guide future research and treatment choices for patients and their health care providers.ConclusionsThis review will provide a clearer understanding of the efficacy and safety of combination pharmacological therapy for chronic pelvic pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020192231; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=192231.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/21909.

Project description:BackgroundDysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cramps) is one of the most common gynecological complaints in women and girls. Dysmenorrhea may be a condition itself or a result of another medical condition, including endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. Research examining the relationship between menstrual pain ratings and catastrophizing has produced mixed results.ObjectiveTo review and meta-analyze the relationship between catastrophizing and pain ratings of chronic cyclical pelvic pain.DesignCross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies that reported the relationship between menstrual/pelvic pain and catastrophizing were included. Study populations had to include healthy menstruating persons or persons with a condition associated with cyclical pelvic pain including primary dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and/or chronic pelvic pain.Data sources and methodsA systematic search of articles published since 2012 on PubMed, PsychInfo, CINHAL, and Medline was conducted in January and rerun in November of 2022. Search terms included cyclical pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, pelvic pain, and catastrophizing. Data extraction was completed independently by two extractors and cross-checked for errors. A random-effects meta-regression was used to synthesize the data using restricted maximum likelihood.ResultsTwenty-five studies examining 4,540 participants were included. A random effects model found a meta-correlation between catastrophizing and pain of r = .31 (95% confidence interval: .23-.40) p < .001. Heterogeneity was large and significant (I2 = 84.5%, Q(24) = 155.16, p < .001). Studies that measured general pelvic pain rather than cyclical pelvic pain specifically and those that used multi-item rather than single-item measures of pain had significantly higher correlations. Age and depression did not moderate the relationship between catastrophizing and pain.ConclusionA systematic review and meta-analysis found that catastrophizing had a small but significant positive association with pain ratings. Patients experiencing cyclical pelvic pain may benefit from interventions targeting the psychological management of pain.RegistrationThis meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO on 14 January 2022. Registration number: CRD42022295328.

Dataset Information

WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets