Home Browse Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain...
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
▬
✚
Review

Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain in women with special consideration to endometriosis

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Elizabeth Ball
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8739-090X
1-3, Khalid S Khan4
Elizabeth Ball
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8739-090X
1-3, Khalid S Khan4
PUBLISHED 04 Feb 2020
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women is defined variably, but for clinical use it is cyclical or non-cyclical pain of at least 3–6 months’ duration. It has major impacts on individuals and society. There are both structural and idiopathic causes. Whereas CPP is not curable in many cases, it is treatable. The most promising approach is multidisciplinary patient-centered care including cause-directed therapy, lifestyle changes, talking therapies, meditation, acupuncture, and physiotherapy (this is not a complete list). One of the most common structural causes for CPP is endometriosis. This review investigates current scientific concepts and recent innovations in this field as well as for CPP in general.

Keywords

chronic pelvic pain in women, endometriosis, idiopathic chronic pelvic pain

Corresponding author: Elizabeth Ball
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:  © 2020 Ball E and Khan KS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Ball E and Khan KS. Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain in women with special consideration to endometriosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20750.1) First published: 04 Feb 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20750.1) Latest published: 04 Feb 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20750.1)

Introduction

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as cyclical or non-cyclical pain of at least 6 months’ duration. Aspects of pain may include dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dysuria and dyschezia. Dysmenorrhea in isolation does not constitute CPP. CPP affects up to 24% of women worldwide1. It accounts for 20% of gynecological clinic referrals2,3. It has a considerable impact on patients’ quality of life and their income, and annual costs to the NHS have been estimated at approximately £326 million4 in addition to the costs to the public due to sick leave. One of the challenging issues is the long delay in women getting a diagnosis and accessing adequate care5.

In some patients, an underlying structural pelvic pathology can be identified (e.g. endometriosis, adenomyosis, or chronic pelvic inflammatory disease with adhesions or hydrosalpinx), but often pain is idiopathic6, meaning it is not due to a visible structural cause (e.g. bladder pain syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and pain memory), which describes the process of constant activation of the body’s pain perception system and applies to women with or without a structural disease such as endometriosis. It often occurs after an episode of acute pain, even if the painful stimulus has already been removed; mechanisms have been reviewed by Flor et al.7. In fact, changes in the brain have been reported in endometriosis patients with CPP but not in asymptomatic women with endometriosis8.

In many cases, the pathology is multifactorial9. Follow up studies have shown that the surgical approach is frequently not curative. For instance, for endometriosis, 20–28% of patients do not experience a reduction in pain10,11 and some require another operation: 25.5% within 2 years and 40–50% after 5 years12.

CPP is often resistant to surgical and medical treatment and appears to respond better to a multimodal, holistic approach rather than reliance on laparoscopy alone13,14. What is therefore required is an evidence base for aspects of a multidisciplinary approach with a focus on improving the patient’s quality of life, including self-management and complementary therapies, while also taking into account fertility plans. Like diabetes or hypertension, CPP is a chronic, idiopathic, and incurable but successfully treatable condition.

Recent advances in the management of endometriosis

Endometriosis definition

One of the commonest structural causes for CPP is endometriosis. Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting 6–10% of women of reproductive age, defined by the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, commonly affecting the lining of the pelvis and the ovaries5 and frequently causing subfertility and pain during periods, sexual intercourse, and defecation (dyschezia). Pain can be managed with painkillers, hormonal interventions, and surgical removal using the laparoscopic approach. There is a considerable emotional and financial cost to patients and society: estimates of total direct costs ranged from $1,109 (£ 850) per patient per year in Canada to $12,118 (£ 9,298) per patient per year in the USA. Indirect costs of endometriosis ranged from $3,314 (£ 2,542) per patient per year in Austria to $15,737 (£ 12,075) per patient per year in the USA15.

Delay in diagnosis

An average 7–9 years’ delay in accessing treatment for endometriosis in the UK16 leads to unnecessary suffering from a condition that could be improved with appropriate management. Currently accurate non-invasive diagnostic tests or biomarkers are lacking. A recent James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Initiative for Endometriosis identified “improved treatment and care of women with endometriosis” and a “non-invasive clinical prediction model” as top research priorities17.

A systematic search revealed no usable diagnostic algorithms to predict the disease successfully. However, an analysis of primary care records identified pain and menstrual symptoms occurring within the same year (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9 to 10.6) and lower gastrointestinal symptoms occurring within 90 days of gynecological pain (OR 6.1, 95% CI: 3.6 to 10.6) as predictive of the diagnosis of endometriosis several years before the formal diagnosis18.

Importantly, a normal ultrasound scan cannot rule out endometriosis and in the presence of symptoms suggestive of endometriosis can give false reassurance19. Specialized ultrasound approaches have been described20, which have an improved pick up rate.

Relationship between symptoms and severity

Traditionally, it has been emphasized that the extent of endometriosis can be disproportionate to the level of pain (women with severe endometriosis may be suffering little pain and women with a small disease volume may have high pain scores). Although this may still hold true for some women, newer evidence indicates a relationship with more severe disease and higher scores of pain during periods, as identified in a meta-analysis that was carried out for the recent NICE guidelines on endometriosis19. Severe endometriosis infiltrating the bladder, bowel, and ureter can be suspected on clinical grounds, although symptoms can vary individually19. A pelvic assessment can point towards severe endometriosis (reduced organ mobility and tender nodularity in the posterior vaginal fornix, pain associated with pressure on the ovaries or uterine ligaments elicited during palpation, and endometriotic vaginal lesions visualised by examination with a speculum)19.

With the recognition of the need for a multidisciplinary team approach, care for women with severe endometriosis has been centralized in the UK to foster the evolution of highly specialized units with gynecologists, urologists, bowel surgeons, fertility specialists, and specialist nurses providing integrated services19. Similar to the care of gynecological cancer, the care for women with severe endometriosis has been centralized to endometriosis centers, which underlie external quality control and prospective data collection21. Outcome measures for about 5,000 women with advanced endometriosis from a national database and have recently been reviewed, showing sustained significant reductions in all pain types associated with endometriosis maintained at 2 years’ follow up. There is a significant improvement in quality of life, which is also sustained at 2 years.

Who gets better from surgery?

Laparoscopy can be diagnostic, therapeutic, or both. In the case of positive findings, a “see and treat approach” has been recommended as the gold standard22. This approach is currently under scientific scrutiny for women with mild endometriosis. In addition, guidelines on endometriosis management have been systematically assessed and their methodology was deemed substandard23.

Evidence from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with placebo surgery control including 39 women with all stages of endometriosis has shown an improvement of symptoms in the treated group (16 of 20 [80%]) versus the placebo group (6 of 19 [32%])10. Quality of life measurements were also significantly improved 6 months after excisional but not after placebo surgery.

However, surgery does not reduce pain in 20–28% of patients10. Secondary findings from observational single center studies indicate a graded response regarding pain reduction after endometriosis surgery, inversely related to disease severity11,24,25. One RCT found pain symptoms improved after endometriosis surgery in significantly more patients with moderate and mild endometriosis (∼100% and ∼70%, respectively) than minimal disease (∼40%)11. In two other studies, women with deep infiltrating endometriosis experienced more pain reduction from surgery than those with superficial endometriosis25.

In order to determine which subgroup of women with CPP and mild forms of endometriosis benefit, or if there is any benefit at all for those women undergoing laparoscopic treatment, Horne et al. recently called for a trial randomizing such women to laparoscopy with and without treatment26. An NIHR-sponsored trial, aiming to create an algorithm to predict the improvement in pain and quality of life after surgery using existing data, is underway (CRESCENDO NIHR PB-PG-0317-20018).

Whereas women with more severe endometriosis appear to have the best pain improvement after surgery, it has also been shown that the excision of endometriosis needs to be complete27,28 and in particular there needs to be the removal of deeply infiltrating implants not just that of ovarian cysts29.

Unfortunately, even with the full excision of endometriosis, women with severe forms require repeat surgery due to pain recurrence. Abbott et al.30 reported that if the revised American Fertility score (a grading system for endometriosis severity) was >70 points (indicating severe endometriosis), it was predictive of requiring further surgery. Interestingly, of the women who had further surgery, endometriosis was proven histologically in only 68%.

This points towards other causes at play that are responsible for ongoing pain which need to be addressed by other approaches. Reasons for residual pain can be endometriosis recurrence but also co-existent conditions associated with endometriosis including adenomyosis, irritable bowel syndrome, bladder pain syndrome, and pain memory.

Postoperative prevention of pain recurrence

Evidence of the value of postoperative medical treatment to prevent pain recurrence is inconclusive. Reviewing the existing literature, Somigliana et al.31 concluded that a short 3–6 months’ course of hormonal therapy with a GnRH agonist after surgery was of limited or no benefit for endometriosis in general and for deep peritoneal endometriosis in particular. On the other hand, they reviewed evidence indicating a beneficial effect of prolonged hormonal therapy after surgery for deep endometriosis. There may be a role for aromatase inhibitors, but more good-quality studies are required32.

The value of postoperative adjuvant therapy may relate to the completeness of surgery. In a retrospective study of 93 patients28, women with incomplete excision who received post-operative GnRH agonist had a post-treatment improvement of a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) score similar to that of patients who had undergone complete excision (4.5±3.2 versus 5.6±3.9, P = 0.272), whereas in patients who had undergone complete excision there was no added benefit during an 18-month follow up period.

A health economics analysis based on historical data from 1,106 women with first diagnosis of endometriosis observed between 1979 and 200133 was used for a recent Chinese analysis34. This analysis suggested a cost saving of over $6,000 per patient who received 6 months of postoperative treatment with a GnRH agonist. Given the recent technical advances in surgery and centralization of care, it can be speculated that current surgery leads more often to complete excision with a reduced cost benefit.

Pre-empt (NIHR ISRCTN97865475), a current RCT, has been designed to examine the role of progesterone-containing contraceptives in reducing recurrence after surgery. Participants are randomly allocated to take either long-acting progestogens (either as 3-monthly injections or as a coil, which is inserted into the womb, where it remains for 5 years) or long-term treatment with the oral contraceptive pill. Results are awaited.

Are there effective holistic and psychological approaches to endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain, including self-management?

Given the portion of non-responders to surgery (reviewed by Horne26) and the recurrence of pain, even if there is no recurrence of endometriosis in 23%, patients are calling for evidence-based approaches that do not require surgery or taking hormones (author’s focus group with patients from endometriosis UK, 2018). It is well known that endometriosis and CPP negatively impact mental health and quality of life, suggesting that affected women may have an increased risk of developing psychological suffering as well as of sexual problems35 due to the presence of pain.

Diet

By far the largest study on diet and endometriosis is based on the dataset of the Nurses’ Health Study (n = 3,800 with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis)36. Women consuming more than two servings per day of red meat had a 56% higher risk of endometriosis (95% CI: 1.22–1.99; P <0.0001) compared to those consuming one or fewer serving per week. Intakes of poultry, fish, shellfish, and eggs were unrelated to endometriosis risk.

A systematic review further reported ORs for the following foods and the presence of endometriosis: calcium intake OR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.83–1.18), milk OR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.65–1.23), eggs OR: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.81–1.28), bacon OR: 1.26 (95% CI: 0.60–2.65), and red meat OR: 1.26 (95% CI: 0.73–2.18)37. Prospective trials investigating the effectiveness of dietary interventions are needed.

Exercise

With endometriosis being both an inflammatory and an estrogen-dependent disease, it seems worthwhile to examine the effect of exercise, which is known to suppress both pathways. A systematic review of 3,355 women with endometriosis who had been doing recent physical activity and 4,600 cases who had been doing physical activity in the past reported that a pooled estimate of adjusted ORs for current exercise appeared to convey a significantly protective effect (OR: 0.69, CI: 0.53–0.89, Z = 2.83, P = 0.005), but the authors discuss their findings with a caveat because the overall estimates did not reach levels of significance38.

Acupuncture

A historic Cochrane systematic review of acupuncture in endometriosis39 was able to include only a single study40 with 67 participants randomized to acupuncture or Chinese herbal medicine. Dysmenorrhea scores were lower in the acupuncture group (mean difference –4.81 points, 95% CI: –6.25 to –3.37, P <0.00001) using the 15-point Chinese Medicine for Treatment of Pelvic Endometriosis scale.

Since then, a systematic review41 of two sham-controlled RCTs and a retrospective study of 121 women with all stages of endometriosis41–43 suggested a decrease in pain following acupuncture, although numerical data could not be meta-analyzed owing to the way outcomes were reported.

A further systematic review included two placebo-controlled RCTs43,44 on acupuncture in endometriosis showing that the 56 included endometriosis patients had more pain reduction with acupuncture than placebo (RR: –1.93, 95% CI: 3.33 to 0.53, P = 0.007)45. A well-designed RCT protocol for a forthcoming study is underway46.

Psychological interventions

Given the association with stress and a pro-inflammatory immune response in addition to the poorer mental health that can be associated with endometriosis, psychological approaches appear to be promising. A current systematic review of psychological and mind–body interventions for endometriosis with narrative synthesis due to the variety of study designs47 identified three RCTs, the remaining nine being non-randomized.

Psychotherapy with somatosensory stimulation48 including a combination of Chinese medicine, hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mindfulness was delivered in sessions over 3 months (n = 35) compared to waitlist controls (n = 32). The intervention group had reductions in maximal global pain (mean group difference –2.1, 95% CI: –3.4 to –0.8, P = 0.002), average global pain (–2.5, 95% CI: –3.5 to –1.4, P <0.001), pelvic pain (–1.4, 95% CI: –2.7 to –0.1, P = 0.036), and dyschezia (–3.5, 95% CI: –5.8 to –1.3, P = 0.003) and improvements in physical quality of life (3.8, 95% CI: 0.5–7.1, P = 0.026) and mental quality of life (5.9, 95% CI: 0.6–11.3, P = 0.031).

In another study, 40 women were randomly divided into two groups: an intervention group of women who were allocated to hatha yoga sessions twice a week for 8 weeks (n = 28) and a control group of women who did not practice yoga (n = 12). Daily pain was significantly reduced in the yoga group compared with those who did not practice yoga (P = 0.0007)49.

The third study randomly assigned 100 consecutive Chinese endometriosis patients to a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) group (n = 50) and a control group (n = 50). Over 12 weeks, both groups received one dose of depot leuprolide, and the PMR group received 12 weeks of additional PMR training. Anxiety levels and depression were measured with validated instruments. The PMR group showed significant improvement in state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression after intervention (P <0.05)50.

There is growing interest in using mindfulness-based interventions, which have been shown to be effective in other types of chronic pain51. One of the uncontrolled studies from the previous systematic review is that of Hansen et al.52, who reported sustained long-term effects (6-year follow-up) of a 10-session mindfulness-based psychological intervention for a series of 10 women with endometriosis-related CPP and improved quality of life.

Mindfulness meditation taught and delivered by a smartphone application has been investigated in a three-arm RCT (n = 90 women with chronic pain with and without endometriosis) compared to PMR and treatment as usual. The publication of results is awaited53.

Recent advances in the management of chronic pain

Laparoscopy is a costly and invasive “gold standard’ to diagnose causes of CPP. The recently completed MEDAL study54 on 291 women with CPP aimed to determine the proportion of women with CPP for whom MRI is accurate enough to replace laparoscopy following evaluation of their symptoms. The authors concluded that MRI scans are not sufficiently accurate to find the cause of CPP in women and should not replace laparoscopy.

A Cochrane review from 201455, which included 13 publications of non-surgical interventions for the management of CPP, reported moderate-quality evidence to support progestogen as an option for CPP at the cost of side effects such as weight gain and bloating. Other interventions such as a comparison of goserelin with progestogen, gabapentin with amitriptyline, “reassurance ultrasound” versus “wait and see”, and writing therapy versus non-disclosure provided too low-quality evidence or was drawn from a single study only. Thus, no recommendations could be made, and the authors called for RCTs of other medical, lifestyle, and psychological interventions.

Similarly, another Cochrane review on oral contraception for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain56 concluded that the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias provided insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) compared with placebo.

To provide an effective oral treatment to alleviate pain in women with CPP in the absence of any obvious pelvic pathology, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized multicenter clinical trial called GAPP is underway. A total of 300 women with CPP and a normal laparoscopy will be randomized to gabapentin or placebo and their treatment will be titrated over a 4-week period to a maximum of 2,700 mg or placebo equivalent and maintained at that dose for 12 weeks. Average and worst pain scores will be measured by validated questionnaires. The results are expected soon57.

A review on CPP management would not be complete without the mention of the role of physiotherapy, including treatment of myofascial trigger points, pelvic floor relaxation, and biofeedback. However, it is difficult to examine these treatments as stand-alone interventions, and a recent systematic review called for well-conducted, larger trials58.

Future research should be directed at helping to shorten the delay in making the diagnosis of endometriosis, involving primary and secondary care. Women who benefit most from surgery should be identified through systematic review of evidence, new RCTs, or analysis of existing data (such as CRESCENDO NIHR PB-PG-0317-20018). Lifestyle measures such as diet and exercise for CPP need to be prospectively examined in RCTs.

In conclusion, progress is being made in creating better awareness of endometriosis, identifying approaches to diagnose endometriosis earlier, and enabling women to access effective treatment. However, not all women with CPP with or without endometriosis will benefit from surgery, and a multidisciplinary patient-centered approach is needed. Whereas evidence for non-surgical approaches is increasing, more RCTs on which to base recommendations are needed.

Abbreviations

CI, confidence interval; CPP, chronic pelvic pain; OR, odds ratio; PMR, progressive muscle relaxation; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

F1000 recommended

References

  • 1.  Latthe P, Latthe M, Say L, et al.: WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: a neglected reproductive health morbidity. BMC Public Health. 2006; 6: 177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 2.  Howard FM: The role of laparoscopy in chronic pelvic pain: promise and pitfalls. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1993; 48(6): 357–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Ayorinde AA, Macfarlane GJ, Saraswat L, et al.: Chronic pelvic pain in women: an epidemiological perspective. Womens Health (Lond). 2015; 11(6): 851–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 4.  Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2014 Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury. University of Kent, Canterbury; 2014. Reference Source
  • 5.  Viganò P, Parazzini F, Somigliana E, et al.: Endometriosis: epidemiology and aetiological factors. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 18(2): 177–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 6.  Tirlapur SA, Priest L, Daniels JP, et al.: How do we define the term idiopathic? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 25(6): 468–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Flor H: Painful memories. Can we train chronic pain patients to 'forget' their pain? EMBO Rep. 2002; 3(4): 288–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 8.  As-Sanie S, Harris RE, Napadow V, et al.: Changes in regional gray matter volume in women with chronic pelvic pain: a voxel-based morphometry study. Pain. 2012; 153(5): 1006–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 9.  Yosef A, Allaire C, Williams C, et al.: Multifactorial contributors to the severity of chronic pelvic pain in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(6): 760.e1–760.e14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 10.  Abbott J, Hawe J, Hunter D, et al.: Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82(4): 878–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Banerjee S, Ballard KD, Lovell DP, et al.: Deep and superficial endometriotic disease: the response to radical laparoscopic excision in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain. Gynecol Surg. 2006; 3(3): 199–205. Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Guo SW: Recurrence of endometriosis and its control. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 15(4): 441–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 13.  Peters AA, van Dorst E, Jellis B, et al.: A randomized clinical trial to compare two different approaches in women with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 77(5): 740–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Katz L, Fransson A, Zacharias R: The Development of a Novel Interdisciplinary Chronic Pelvic Pain Program. Can J Pain. 2019. | F1000 Recommendation
  • 15.  Soliman AM, Yang H, Du EX, et al.: The direct and indirect costs associated with endometriosis: a systematic literature review. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(4): 712–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 16.  Jan H, Shakir F, Haines P, et al.: Diagnostic Delay for Superficial and Deep Endometriosis in the United Kingdom: A First Quantitative Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21(6): S127. Publisher Full Text
  • 17.  Horne AW, Saunders PTK, Abokhrais IM, et al.: Top ten endometriosis research priorities in the UK and Ireland. Lancet. 2017; 389(10085): 2191–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 18.  Burton C, Iversen L, Bhattacharya S, et al.: Pointers to earlier diagnosis of endometriosis: a nested case-control study using primary care electronic health records. Br J Gen Pract. 2017; 67(665): e816–e823. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 19.  Endometriosis: diagnosis and management, NICE guideline [NG73]. 2017. Reference Source
  • 20.  Leonardi M, Condous G: How to perform an ultrasound to diagnose endometriosis. Aust J Ultras Med. 2018; 21(2): 61–9. Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 21.  Byrne D, Curnow T, Smith P, et al.: Laparoscopic excision of deep rectovaginal endometriosis in BSGE endometriosis centres: a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(4): e018924. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 22.  Ball E, Koh C, Janik G, et al.: Gynaecological laparoscopy: 'see and treat' should be the gold standard. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 20(4): 325–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 23.  Appleyard TL, Mann CH, Khan KS: Guidelines for the management of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis: a systematic appraisal of their quality. BJOG. 2006; 113(7): 749–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 24.  Vercellini P, Fedele L, Aimi G, et al.: Reproductive performance, pain recurrence and disease relapse after conservative surgical treatment for endometriosis: the predictive value of the current classification system. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(10): 2679–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 25.  Milingos S, Protopapas A, Kallipolitis G, et al.: Endometriosis in patients with chronic pelvic pain: is staging predictive of the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in pain relief? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006; 62(1): 48–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 26.  Horne AW, Daniels J, Hummelshoj L, et al.: Surgical removal of superficial peritoneal endometriosis for managing women with chronic pelvic pain: time for a rethink? BJOG. 2019; 126(12): 1414–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 27.  Angioni S, Pontis A, Dessole M, et al.: Pain control and quality of life after laparoscopic en-block resection of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) vs. incomplete surgical treatment with or without GnRHa administration after surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 291(2): 363–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 28.  Cao Q, Lu F, Feng WW, et al.: Comparison of complete and incomplete excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(11): 21497–506. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
  • 29.  Hidaka T, Nakashima A, Hashimoto Y, et al.: Effects of laparoscopic radical surgery for deep endometriosis on endometriosis-related pelvic pain. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2012; 21(5): 355–361. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 30.  Abbott JA, Hawe J, Clayton RD, et al.: The effects and effectiveness of laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a prospective study with 2–5 year follow-up. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18(9): 1922–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 31.  Somigliana E, Busnelli A, Benaglia L, et al.: Postoperative hormonal therapy after surgical excision of deep endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 209: 77–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 32.  Nawathe A, Patwardhan S, Yates D, et al.: Systematic review of the effects of aromatase inhibitors on pain associated with endometriosis. BJOG. 2008; 115(7): 818–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 33.  Busacca M, Chiaffarino F, Candiani M, et al.: Determinants of long-term clinically detected recurrence rates of deep, ovarian, and pelvic endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(2): 426–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 34.  Wu B, Yang Z, Tobe RG, et al.: Medical therapy for preventing recurrent endometriosis after conservative surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG. 2018; 125(4): 469–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 35.  Moradi M, Parker M, Sneddon A, et al.: Impact of endometriosis on women's lives: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14: 123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 36.  Yamamoto A, Harris HR, Vitonis AF, et al.: A prospective cohort study of meat and fish consumption and endometriosis risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219(2): 178.e1–178.e10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 37.  Hoorsan H, Mirmiran P, Chaichian S, et al.: Diet and Risk of Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2017; 19(9): e41248. Publisher Full Text
  • 38.  Ricci E, Viganò P, Cipriani S, et al.: Physical activity and endometriosis risk in women with infertility or pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(40): e4957. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 39.  Zhu X, Hamilton KD, McNicol ED: Acupuncture for pain in endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (9): CD007864. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 40.  Xiang D, Situ Y, Liang X, et al.: Ear acupuncture therapy for 37 cases of dysmenorrhea due to endometriosis. J Tradit Chin Med. 2002; 22(4): 282–5. PubMed Abstract
  • 41.  Highfield ES, Laufer MR, Schnyer RN, et al.: Adolescent endometriosis-related pelvic pain treated with acupuncture: two case reports. J Altern Complement Med. 2006; 12(3): 317–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 42.  Rubi-Klein K, Kucera-Sliutz E, Nissel H, et al.: Is acupuncture in addition to conventional medicine effective as pain treatment for endometriosis? A randomised controlled cross-over trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010; 153(1): 90–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 43.  Wayne PM, Kerr CE, Schnyer RN, et al.: Japanese-style acupuncture for endometriosis-related pelvic pain in adolescents and young women: results of a randomized sham-controlled trial. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2008; 21(5): 247–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 44.  de Sousa TR, de Souza BC, Zomkowisk K, et al.: The effect of acupuncture on pain, dyspareunia, and quality of life in Brazilian women with endometriosis: A randomized clinical trial. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2016; 25: 114–21. Publisher Full Text
  • 45.  Mira TAA, Buen MM, Borges MG, et al.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of complementary treatments for women with symptomatic endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143(1): 2–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 46.  Liang R, Li P, Peng X, et al.: Efficacy of acupuncture on pelvic pain in patients with endometriosis: study protocol for a randomized, single-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled trial. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 47.  Evans S, Fernandez S, Olive L, et al.: Psychological and mind-body interventions for endometriosis: A systematic review. J Psychosom Res. 2019; 124: 109756. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 48.  Meissner K, Schweizer-Arau A, Limmer A, et al.: Psychotherapy With Somatosensory Stimulation for Endometriosis-Associated Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(5): 1134–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 49.  Gonçalves AV, Barros NF, Bahamondes L: The Practice of Hatha Yoga for the Treatment of Pain Associated with Endometriosis. J Altern Complement Med. 2017; 23(1): 45–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 50.  Zhao L, Wu H, Zhou X, et al.: Effects of progressive muscular relaxation training on anxiety, depression and quality of life of endometriosis patients under gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist therapy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 162(2): 211–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 51.  Ball EF, Nur Shafina Muhammad Sharizan E, Franklin G, et al.: Does mindfulness meditation improve chronic pain? A systematic review. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 29(6): 359–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 52.  Hansen KE, Kesmodel US, Kold M, et al.: Long-term effects of mindfulness-based psychological intervention for coping with pain in endometriosis: A six-year follow-up on a pilot study. give Nord Psychol. 2016; 69(1): 100–9. Publisher Full Text
  • 53.  Ball E, Newton S, Kahan BC, et al.: Smartphone App Using Mindfulness Meditation for Women With Chronic Pelvic Pain (MEMPHIS): Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018; 7(1): e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 54.  Khan KS, Tryposkiadis K, Tirlapur SA, et al.: MRI versus laparoscopy to diagnose the main causes of chronic pelvic pain in women: a test-accuracy study and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2018; 22(40): 1–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 55.  Cheong YC, Smotra G, Williams AC: Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (3): CD008797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 56.  Brown J, Crawford TJ, Datta S, et al.: Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 5(Suppl 1): CD001019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 57.  Vincent K, Baranowski A, Bhattacharya S, et al.: GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(1): e014924. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
  • 58.  Klotz SGR, Schön M, Ketels G, et al.: Physiotherapy management of patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP): A systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2019; 35(6): 516–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Feb 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Article Versions (1)
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
 - -
Citations
SEE MORE DETAILS
CITE
how to cite this article
Ball E and Khan KS. Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain in women with special consideration to endometriosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20750.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 04 Feb 2020
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 04 Feb 2020
Paul J Yong, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, Canada 
Approved
VIEWS 0
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22820.r59216
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Yong PJ. Reviewer Report For: Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain in women with special consideration to endometriosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22820.r59216)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/9-83/v1#referee-response-59216
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern
Views
2
Cite
Reviewer Report 04 Feb 2020
Délio Marques Conde, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil 
Approved
VIEWS 2
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22820.r59215
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Conde DM. Reviewer Report For: Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic pelvic pain in women with special consideration to endometriosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):83 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22820.r59215)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/9-83/v1#referee-response-59215
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Feb 2020
Comment

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved
The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved
Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Reviewer Reports

Invited Reviewers
1 2
Version 1
04 Feb 20 		read read
  1. Délio Marques Conde, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, Brazil
  2. Paul J Yong, University of British Columbia, Women's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Center, Vancouver, Canada

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment
Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
    Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
    Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
    Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
    Sign In
    If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

    The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
    Email address not valid, please try again

    You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

    You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

    Code not correct, please try again
    Email us for further assistance.
    Server error, please try again.