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

Pallavi Latthe, Manish Latthe, Lale Say, Metin Gülmezoglu, Khalid S Khan, Pallavi Latthe, Manish Latthe, Lale Say, Metin Gülmezoglu, Khalid S Khan

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection for systematic review on prevalence of chronic pelvic pain.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality of studies included in systematic review on prevalence of chronic pelvic pain. (Data presented as 100% stacked bars; figures in the stacks represent number of studies).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Epimaps of worldwide prevalence of chronic pelvic pain.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Prevalence of different types of chronic pelvic pain.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plots of the three types of pelvic pain prevalence studies. [a – dysmenorrhoea; b – dyspareunia; c – noncyclical pelvic pain]

References

    1. Howard FM. The role of laparoscopy in chronic pelvic pain: promise and pitfalls. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1993;48:357–387.
    1. Mathias SD, Kuppermann M, Liberman RF, Lipschutz RC, Steege JF. Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:321–327. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00458-0.
    1. Davies L, Ganger K, Drummond M, Saunders D, Beard R. The economic burden of intractable gynaecological pain. J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;12:46–54.
    1. Zondervan K, Barlow DH. Epidemiology of chronic pelvic pain. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;14:403–414. doi: 10.1053/beog.1999.0083.
    1. Dickersin K. Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:6–12. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.6.
    1. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A practical guide. 2. Cambridge University Press; 2001. Frequency and Rate; pp. 67–73.
    1. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Popay J, Nixon J. J K, (eds.) In: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness (CRD Report No 4) Khan KS, ter Riet G, Popay J, Nixon J and J K, editor. York, University of York; 2001.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
    1. Philips Z, Ginelly. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, RiemsmaR Review of guidelines for good practice in decision analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment. 2004;8
    1. Williams RE, Hartmann KE, Steege JF. Documenting the current definitions of chronic pelvic pain: implications for research. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:686–691.
    1. Vercellini P, Fedele L, Arcaini L, Bianchi S, Rognoni MT, Candiani GB. Laparoscopy in the diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain in adolescent women. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:827–830.
    1. Céspedes Maturana L, Cornejo Araya P. Prevalencia de síntomas premenstruales y dismenorrea en mujeres de edad fértil y su relación con el ausentismo laboral / Prevalence of premenstrual symptoms and dysmenorrhea in plentiful women and their relationship with work absence. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; 1997. p. 82.
    1. González Bahamonde M, Ibarra Farías M. Conocimientos y prácticas de autocuidado sobre síndrome premenstrual y dismenorrea de un grupo de alumnas de la Facultad de Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile / Selfcare knowledge and practice about premenstrual syndrome and dysmenorrea in a group of female students from Facultad de Educación, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. . 1999. p. 83.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. PDQ Epidemiology. second. Vol. 4. London, B.C. Decker Inc.; 1998. Measurement; pp. 79–120.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Song F, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof. 2001;24:126–151. doi: 10.1177/01632780122034849.
    1. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006;367:1066–1074. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68397-9.
    1. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446.
    1. Gath D, Osborn M, Bungay G, Iles S, Day A, Bond A, Passingham C. Psychiatric disorder and gynaecological symptoms in middle aged women: a community survey. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294:213–218.
    1. Kessel N, Coppen A. The prevalence of common menstrual symptoms. Lancet. 1963;2:61–64. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(63)90063-1.
    1. Mahmood TA, Templeton AA, Thomson L, Fraser C. Menstrual symptoms in women with pelvic endometriosis. BJOG. 1991;98:558–563.
    1. Liu DT, Hitchcock A. Endometriosis: its association with retrograde menstruation, dysmenorrhoea and tubal pathology. BJOG. 1986;93:859–862.
    1. Andersch B, Milsom I. An epidemiologic study of young women with dysmenorrhea. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:655–660.
    1. Sundell G, Milsom I, Andersch B. Factors influencing the prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhoea in young women. BJOG. 1990;97:588–594.
    1. Bergsjo P, Jenssen H, Vellar OD. Dysmenorrhea in industrial workers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1975;54:255–259.
    1. Widholm O, Kantero RL. A statistical analysis of the menstrual patterns of 8000 Finnish girls and their mothers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1971;14:1–36.
    1. Woods NF, Most A, Dery GK. Prevalence of perimenstrual symptoms. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:1257–1264.
    1. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Jenkinson CP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH, Kennedy SH. The community prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in women and associated illness behaviour. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:541–547.
    1. Garde K, Lunde I. Female sexual behaviour. A study in a random sample of 40-year-old women. Maturitas. 1980;2:225–240. doi: 10.1016/0378-5122(80)90007-9.
    1. Jamieson DJ, Steege JF. The prevalence of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, pelvic pain, and irritable bowel syndrome in primary care practices. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:55–58. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00360-6.
    1. Oberg K, Fugl-Meyer AR, Fugl-Meyer KS. On categorization and quantification of women's sexual dysfunctions: an epidemiological approach. Int J Impot Res. 2004;16:261–269. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901151.
    1. Osborn M, Hawton K, Gath D. Sexual dysfunction among middle aged women in the community. BMJ. 1988;British Medical Journal. 296:959–962.
    1. Cain VS, Johannes CB, Avis NE, Mohr B, Schocken M, Skurnick J, Ory M. Sexual functioning and practices in a multi-ethnic study of midlife women: Baseline results from SWAN. Journal of Sex Research. 2003;40:266–276.
    1. Rulin MC, Davidson AR, Philliber SG, Graves WL, Cushman LF. Long-term effect of tubal sterilization on menstrual indices and pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:118–121.
    1. Thongkrajai P, Pengsaa P, Lulitanond V. An epidemiological survey of female reproductive health status: gynecological complaints and sexually-transmitted diseases. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1999;30:287–295.
    1. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH, Kennedy SH. Prevalence and incidence of chronic pelvic pain in primary care: Evidence from a national general practice database. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:1149–1155.
    1. Latthe P, Mignini L, Gray R, Hills R, Khan K. Factors predisposing women to chronic pelvic pain: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:749–755. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38748.697465.55.
    1. Zondervan KT, Yudkin PL, Vessey MP, Jenkinson CP, Dawes MG, Barlow DH, Kennedy SH. Chronic pelvic pain in the community - Symptoms, investigations, and diagnoses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1149–1155. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.112904.
    1. Rudan I, Lawn J, Cousens S, Rowe AK, Boschi-Pinto C, Tomaskovic L, Mendoza W, Lanata CF, Roca-Feltrer A, Carneiro I, Schellenberg JA, Polasek O, Weber M, Bryce J, Morris SS, Black RE, Campbell H. Gaps in policy-relevant information on burden of disease in children: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005;365:2031–2040. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66697-4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera