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

To evaluate the effectiveness of nonpharmacological conservative therapies for women with CPP. 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. 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). 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. 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.