Group-based multimodal physical therapy in women with chronic pelvic pain: A randomized controlled trial

Optimizing Pain Intensity Assessment in Clinical Trials: How Many Ratings are Needed to Best Balance the Need for Validity and to Minimize Assessment Burden?

Pain intensity is the most commonly used outcome domain in pain clinical trials. To minimize the chances of type II error (ie, concluding that a treatment does not have beneficial effects, when in fact it does), the measure of pain intensity used should be sensitive to changes produced by effective pain treatments. Here we sought to identify the combination of pain intensity ratings that would balance the need for reliability and validity against the need to minimize assessment burden. We conducted secondary analyses using data from a completed 4-arm clinical trial of psychological pain treatments (N = 164 adults). Current, worst, least, and average pain intensity in the past 24 hours were assessed 4 times before and after treatment using 0 to 10 numerical rating scale-11. We created a variety of composite scores using these ratings and evaluated their reliability (Cronbach's alphas) and validity (ie, associations with a gold standard score created by averaging 16 ratings and sensitivity for detecting between-group differences in treatment efficacy). We found that for each measure, reliability increased as the number of ratings used to create the measures increased and that ratings from 3 or more days were needed to have adequately strong associations with the gold standard. Regarding sensitivity, the findings suggest that composite scores made up of ratings from 4 days are needed to maximize the chances of detecting treatment effects, especially with smaller sample sizes. In conclusion, using data from 3 or 4 days of assessment may be the best practice. PERSPECTIVE: Composite scores made up of at least 3 days of pain ratings appear to be needed to maximize reliability and validity while minimizing the assessment burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01800604.

Guideline No. 445: Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic pelvic pain in females.

TARGET POPULATION

This guideline is specific to pelvic pain in adolescent and adult females and excluded literature that looked at pelvic pain in males. It also did not address genital pain.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The intent is to benefit patients with chronic pelvic pain by providing an evidence-based approach to management. Access to certain interventions such as physiotherapy and psychological treatments, and to interdisciplinary care overall, may be limited by costs and service availability.

EVIDENCE

Medline and the Cochrane Database from 1990 to 2020 were searched for articles in English on subjects related to chronic pelvic pain, including diagnosis, overlapping pain conditions, central sensitization, management, medications, surgery, physiotherapy, psychological therapies, alternative and complementary therapies, and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary care. The committee reviewed the literature and available data and used a consensus approach to develop recommendations. Only articles in English and pertaining to female subjects were included.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Family physicians, gynaecologists, urologists, pain specialists, physiotherapists, and mental health professionals.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Management of chronic pelvic pain should consider multifactorial contributors, including underlying central sensitization/nociplastic pain, and employ an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial approach that includes pain education, physiotherapy, and psychological & medical treatments.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Impact of Preoperative Pain on Outcomes After Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery and Perioperative Pelvic Floor Muscle Training

IMPORTANCE

The impact of preoperative pain on outcomes can guide counseling.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes after vaginal reconstructive surgery and pelvic muscle training between women with and without preoperative pain.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss (OPTIMAL) trial, which randomized patients to a surgical intervention (sacrospinous ligament fixation versus uterosacral vaginal vault suspension) and a perioperative behavioral intervention (pelvic floor muscle training vs usual care). Preoperative pain was defined as a response of "5" or greater on the pain scale or answering "moderately" or "quite a bit" on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory question "Do you usually experience pain in the lower abdomen or genital area?"

RESULTS

The OPTIMAL trial included 109 women with preoperative pain and 259 without pain. Although women with pain had worse pain scores and pelvic floor symptoms at baseline and postoperatively, they had greater improvement on pain scores (-2.3 ± 2.4 vs -0.2 ± 1.4, P < 0.001), as well as Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores. Among women with pain who underwent a sacrospinous ligament fixation, those who received pelvic floor muscle training had a greater reduction in pain compared with those in the usual care group (-3.0 ± 2.3 vs -1.3 ± 2.1, P = 0.008). Persistent or worsening pain was present at 24 months in 5 (16%) women with preoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with preoperative pain experience significant improvements in pain and pelvic floor symptoms with vaginal reconstructive surgery. Pelvic floor muscle training perioperatively may be beneficial for select patients.

Benefits of physical therapy in improving quality of life and pain associated with endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether non-pharmacologic conservative therapeutic interventions are beneficial in improving pain intensity and quality of life in women with endometriosis compared with placebo.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was designed. A literature search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, PEDro, Embase, CINAHL, Isi Web of Science, Enfispo, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials included women with endometriosis treated with conservative treatment versus placebo. The quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the risk of bias of the individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. For the overall quality of the studies, the GRADE guidelines were used.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis included six studies. Significant results were obtained for pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.21 to -0.57; I² 69%) and concerning quality of life, significant results were only obtained for the sub-variable physical function (SMD -1.49; 95% CI -2.88 to -0.10; I² 95%). No statistically significant differences were found for the rest of the variables analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Non-pharmacologic conservative therapies are a therapeutic option for women with endometriosis for improving pain intensity and physical function.

Non-pharmacological therapies for treating chronic pelvic pain in women: A review

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is an intricate condition with multiple etiologies that lead to indefinite pain mechanisms. Physicians and researchers are challenged in its treatment, and the combined therapy of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment has been recognized as a multidisciplinary approach cited by guidelines and adopted in clinical practice. As an alternative therapy for CPP, non-pharmacologic therapies benefit patients and deserve further study. This study reviews the literature published from January 1991 to April 2022 on non-pharmacologic therapies for CPP in adult women. Based on a survey, this review found that the most commonly used non-pharmacological therapies for CPP include pelvic floor physical therapy, psychotherapy, acupuncture, neuromodulation, and dietary therapy. By evaluating the efficacy and safety of each therapy, this study concluded that non-pharmacological therapies should be included in the initial treatment plan because of their high degree of safety and low rate of side effects. To fill the lack of data on non-pharmacologic therapies for CPP, this study provides evidence that may guide treatment and pain management.