Next Article in Journal
Trust in and Use of COVID-19 Information Sources Differs by Health Literacy among College Students
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of the Medical Resource Allocation: Evidence from China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/healthcare11060830
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Analgesic Efficacy of Acupuncture on Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Study

by
Kent Yu-Hsien Lin
1,†,
Yi-Chuan Chang
2,3,†,
Wen-Chi Lu
2,
Peddanna Kotha
2,
Yi-Hung Chen
4,5,6 and
Cheng-Hao Tu
2,*
1
Department of Gynecology, Ryde Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney 2122, Australia
2
Graduate Institute of Acupuncture Science, China Medical University, Taichung 404333, Taiwan
3
Department of Chinese Medicine, China Medical University Beigang Hospital, Yunlin 651012, Taiwan
4
International Master Program in Acupuncture, China Medical University, Taichung 404333, Taiwan
5
Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Center, China Medical University, Taichung 404333, Taiwan
6
Department of Photonics and Communication Engineering, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Healthcare 2023, 11(6), 830; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060830
Submission received: 20 February 2023 / Revised: 7 March 2023 / Accepted: 9 March 2023 / Published: 11 March 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is the pain occurred in the pelvic region longer than six months. The monotherapy of medicine may not adequate for the pain management of CPP and multidisciplinary approaches have been more recommended. The aim of this study is to evaluate the pain management efficacy of acupuncture compared with a control group on CPP. The articles of randomized controlled trial on CPP in PubMed and Embase databases were screened between January 2011 and September 2022 without language restriction to evaluate the treatment efficacy of acupuncture. The visual analogue scale/numerical rating scale (VAS/NRS) and total pain scores of National Institutes of Health—chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) were served as outcome variables. Post-intervention mean scores were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis. Seventeen studies including 1455 patients were selected for meta-analysis. Both total pain scores of NIH-CPSI and VAS/NAS data revealed significant lower pain level in the acupuncture group than in the control group. Moreover, monotherapy with acupuncture revealed a significantly lower pain level than in the control group in both total pain scores of NIH-CPSI and VAS/NRS. These results indicated that acupuncture may have beneficial effects on pain management for CPP, even when administrated as a monotherapy.

1. Introduction

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is pain occurring in the pelvic region for longer than six months. CPP can manifest as cyclic or non-cyclic pain that may be associated with symptoms suggestive of lower urinary tract, sexual, bowel, myofascial, or gynecologic dysfunction [1]. The prevalence rate of CPP varies around the world. A previous study from the World Health Organization reported that the prevalence rates of non-cyclic CPP ranged from 2.1% to 24%, of cyclic CPP (associated with dysmenorrhea) ranged from 16.8% to 81%, and of intermitted CPP (associated with dyspareunia) ranged from 8% to 21.1% across different countries or regions [2]. Another study reported that the prevalence rate of CPP in females may be twice as high as in males [3]. A previous study using the United Kingdom primary care database reported that the annual prevalence of non-cyclic CPP in females may have been as frequent as migraine, back pain, and asthma between 1991 and 1995 [4]. It has been estimated that the direct annual medical cost (physician visit plus health care expenditure) and indirect economic lost (time lost from work) of CPP in 1994 were 2.8 billion and 555.3 million in the United States, respectively [5]. Thus, CPP is a common problem which may cause significant socioeconomic loses.
The management of CPP is challenging. A recent survey of the members of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that 45% responders considered the management of CPP in women in the United Kingdom is ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ [6]. In addition, more than half (51%) of responders considered that ‘Pain management’ to be the most important aspect for the care of CPP in women, even above the ‘identification of cause of pain’. Non-surgical intervention for CPP often focus on pain relief if the cause of CPP is unknown [7]. Pharmacotherapy for the CPP may include prescript of analgesics, hormonal therapies, anticonvulsants, and/or antidepressants to relieve chronic pain and associated mood and sleep symptoms [8]. On the other hand, the non-pharmacotherapy also has been recommended to treat CPP, including physiotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, dietary therapy, neuromodulation, pain education, and lifestyle advice [9,10]. However, monotherapy may not be adequate for the management of CPP, and multidisciplinary approaches have been more recommended [9,10,11].
Acupuncture, an important intervention method in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), is nowadays practiced worldwide for various diseases, especially in pain management. An individual patient data meta-analysis study with large sample size (with 17,922 patients) reported that acupuncture intervention has more analgesic effective than sham and no acupuncture intervention for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache [12]. Similar results have been reported in a recent updated analysis (with 20,827 patients) for nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, or shoulder pain [13]. Furthermore, other meta-analysis studies have also reported superior efficacy of acupuncture intervention for the relief of postoperative pain [14], myofascial pain [15], cancer-related pain [16], as well as primary dysmenorrhea [17], endometriosis [18], irritable bowel syndrome [19], and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP-CPPS) [20]. Since the revised standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture (STRICTA) has been introduced in 2010 to improve the quality of clinical trial report [21], in the present study we performed a systematic review on randomized controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture for pain management of CPP from January 2011 to September 2022, and then conducted meta-analysis to determine the treatment efficacy of acupuncture in pain management of CPP, without prior registration of the review protocol on public website or database. Moreover, acupuncture treatment can be administered as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy with other approaches. We also investigated the analgesic effect of acupuncture, whether administered as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, to probe the possible difference between treatment strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

2.1.1. Types of Studies

We included RCT that assessed pain experience to evaluate the treatment efficacy of acupuncture in CPP patients. Case report, case series, non-human RCT, review article, study protocol, and conference paper, abstract, and poster were excluded.

2.1.2. Types of Participants

We included patients who suffer from CPP that may associated with endometriosis, pelvic gridle pain, idiopathic pelvic pain, inflammatory pelvic pain, and CP-CPPS. The acute pelvic pain may associate with primary dysmenorrhea, post-operative pain, constipation, and piriformis syndrome were excluded.

2.1.3. Types of Interventions

The intervention based on acupoint stimulation, namely electroacupuncture (EA), manual acupuncture (MA), moxibustion, abdomen acupuncture, catgut implantation, laser acupuncture, and acupressure, were included in this study as acupuncture intervention. Rare types of acupuncture needle in clinical practice were excluded. Any other interventions, e.g., health education, standard care, western medication, physiotherapies, sham acupuncture and TCM medication, were recognized as control intervention in this study. The procedural intervention, e.g., nerve block injection, was excluded since it is hard to maintain a routine intervention.

2.1.4. Outcome

The pain level was assessed with a validated scale or questionnaire, namely visual analog scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS), and total pain scores of National Institutes of Health—chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI), were included in this study. Any study without pain assessment was excluded.

2.2. Data Sources and Study Selection

The RCT studies were searched for in the of PubMed and Embase database from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2022 using the following search strategy: [(Endometriosis) or (pelvic pain) or (chronic pelvic pain) not (primary dysmenorrhea)] and [(Acupuncture) or (acupressure) or (electroacupuncture) or (meridians) or (moxibustion) or (needling)]. No language restriction was applied. Duplicated reports from PubMed and Embase were excluded by screening the title of reports. WC Lu and P Kotha independently selected the relevant reports based on the abstract. Then, Kent YH Lin and CH Tu reviewed the main text of reports and selected eligible studies for data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion among Kent YH Lin, CH Tu, and the arbiter YH Chen.

2.3. Data Extraction

Data was extracted from the included studies according to the predetermined data forms by WC Lu and then verified by YC Chang. The following items were extracted: publication information (journal, author, and year of publication); participants (sample size, sex, and age); acupuncture intervention (type of acupuncture, periods and frequency of intervention, and follow-up period if any); control (type of control, periods and frequency of intervention, and follow-up period if any); and pain assessment after intervention.

2.4. Risk of Bias Assessment

Kent YH Lin and CH Tu independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study using Risk of Bias tool 2.0 with the following 5 domains: bias arising from the randomization process; bias owing to departures from the intended interventions; bias from missing outcome data; bias in measurement of the outcome; and bias in selection of the reported result [22]. The overall risk and the risk of these 5 domains were judged with “Low”, “Some concerns”, or “High” level. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among two authors and the arbiter YH Chen.

2.5. Data Synthesis

The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software (RevMan v. 5.4.1). All VAS and NRS data were converted into scores between 0 and 10 by proportional method. To assess the effect of acupuncture on CPP, the data were analyzed using mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The chi-square test was used to assess the heterogeneity of results among the included studies, and I2 scores were calculated to indicate the severity of the heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was considered significant if the p value of chi-square test was less than 0.05. A substantial heterogeneity among the studies was considered if I2 > 50%, whereas a serious heterogeneity was considered if I2 > 75%. When a serious heterogeneity was indicated, subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of acupuncture and type of control. A random effects model was used to synthesize the data. If only one appropriate study was allocated in a subgroup, descriptive synthesis of the findings was conducted. If the number of studies for pooling was more than 10, publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 126 reports were retrieved from PubMed and Embase. After removing the 27 duplicated reports, 99 reports were screened with their abstract, and 51 reports were excluded. The full texts of the remaining 48 reports were retrieved and reviewed. Thirty-one reports were excluded due to eligibility, and finally, there were 17 studies included for meta-analysis (Figure 1). All included studies were published between April 2011 and September 2022. Ten studies were published in Chinese [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and 7 studies were published in English [33,34,35,36,37,38,39].

3.2. Study Characteristics

3.2.1. Patients

A total of 1455 CPP patients (867 females and 588 males) were included into this meta-analysis. Among them, there were 728 CPP patients treated with acupuncture intervention, including 167 patients with EA (107 females and 60 males), 294 patients with MA (174 females and 120 males), 24 patients with moxibustion (24 females), 30 patients with abdomen acupuncture (30 females), 55 patients with ear acupuncture (55 females), 41 patients with laser acupuncture (41 females), and 117 patients with catgut implantation (117 males). On the other hand, there are 727 CPP patients received control intervention, including 157 patients with standard care (157 females), 333 patients with western medication (122 females and 211 males), 72 patients with TCM medication (72 females), 85 patients with physiotherapy (85 females), and 80 patients with sham acupuncture (80 males) (Table 1).
The age range of CPP patients was 18 to 50 years. The possible etiology of CPP were idiopathic chronic pelvic pain, inflammatory pelvic pain, endometriosis, pregnancy-related pelvic gridle pain, and category IIIB of CP-CPPS (Table 1).

3.2.2. Acupuncture Interventions

Among the 17 included RCTs, EA was conducted as acupuncture intervention in 5 RCTs. The other 6 RCTs conducted with MA as their acupuncture intervention, and 2 RCTs conducted with catgut implantation as their acupuncture intervention. Moxibustion, abdomen acupuncture, ear acupuncture, and laser acupuncture served as acupuncture intervention in the remained 4 RTCs, respectively (Table 2). The acupuncture intervention was administrated as an adjunctive therapy in 6 RCTs, whereas acupuncture intervention was administrated as a monotherapy in 11 RCTs (Table 2). The intervention periods were ranged from 2 weeks to 6 months (Table 2).

3.2.3. Controls

Different types of control have been conducted in these 17 RCTs. Western medication has been used as a control intervention in 8 RCTs, whereas TCM medication served as a control intervention in 3 RCTs. Standard care, sham acupuncture, and physiotherapies were served as control interventions in 2 RCTs, respectively (Table 2). The intervention periods for control intervention were ranged from 2 weeks to 6 months (Table 2).

3.2.4. Outcome Measures

The pain level was assessed with VAS in 8 RCTs, with NRS in 2 RCTs, and with total pain scores of NIH-CPSI in 7 RCTs (Table 1). In addition to the assessment of pain level after intervention, 5 RCTs assessed pain level with additional follow-up period ranging from 12 weeks to one year (Table 1).

3.3. Risk of Bias

Among these 17 RCTs, 14 RCTs were judged at low risk of bias in the randomization process but one RCT was judged at high risk of bias in the randomization process. All 17 RCTs were judged at low risk of bias in deviation from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, and selection of the reported result. However, 12 RCTs were raised with some concerns of the risk of bias in measurement of the outcome, whereas 3 RCTs were judged at low risk of bias in measurement of the outcome. Taken together with these judgements of risk from 5 domains, there were 3 RCTs have low overall risk of bias, 11 RCTs have some concerns of the overall risk of bias, and 1 RCT have high overall risk of bias (Figure 2).

3.4. Pain Management

3.4.1. Overall Effect

Since the total pain scores of NIH-CPSI also evaluate the frequency and the region of pain, which are not evaluate by the single-dimensional VAS/NRS, the data has been separated and pooled according to the types of outcome measurement (i.e., NIH-CPSI or VAS/NRS) for meta-analysis. The pain assessed with total pain scores of NIH-CPSI post-intervention data pooled from 7 RCTs revealed a significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.10, 95% CI [−2.41, −1.78], p < 0.00001). No significant heterogeneity has been found among these 7 RCTs (Chi-square = 4.05, p = 0.67; I2 = 0%) (Figure 3). The post-intervention data pooled from 10 RCTs which assessed pain level with VAS or NRS also revealed a significantly lower pain level with acupuncture intervention than with control intervention (MD = −1.87, 95% CI [−2.55, −1.20], p < 0.00001). However, a serious heterogeneity has been found among these 10 RCTs (Chi-square = 111.08, p < 0.00001; I2 = 92%) (Figure 4).

3.4.2. Subgroup Analysis of Acupuncture Interventions

Considering that serious heterogeneity has been found among the RCTs that assessed pain level with VAS or NRS, we conducted a subgroup analysis according to the types of acupuncture intervention. Pooled post-intervention data from 3 RCTs with EA intervention revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −1.19, 95% CI [−1.59, −0.78], p < 0.00001). Pooled post-intervention data from 3 RCTs with MA intervention also revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.45, 95% CI [−3.65, −1.25], p = < 0.0001). For moxibustion, a single RCT revealed significant lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.71, 95% CI [−3.06, −2.36], p < 0.00001). Another RCT with abdomen acupuncture revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −1.70, 95% CI [−2.52, −0.88], p < 0.0001). One RCT with ear acupuncture revealed significant lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −3.15, 95% CI [−4,12 −2.18], p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference in pain level between acupuncture and control was found in an RCT with laser acupuncture as acupuncture intervention (MD = 0.25, 95% CI [−0.73, 1.23], p = 0.62). Among these 6 different types of acupuncture intervention, significant subgroup differences have been found (Chi-square = 58.15, p < 0.00001; I2 = 91.4%) (Figure 4).

3.4.3. Subgroup Analysis of Control Interventions

To test whether the serious heterogeneity among RCTs that assessed pain level with VAS or NRS may be contributed from different types of control intervention, we conducted a subgroup analysis according to the types of control intervention. Pooled post-intervention data from 2 RCTs with standard care revealed no significant change in pain level between acupuncture and control (MD = −2.05, 95% CI [−4.16, 0.05], p = 0.06). Pooled post-intervention data from 3 RCTs with Western medication revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −1.65, 95% CI [−2.83, −0.47], p = 0.006). Pooled post-intervention data from other 3 RCTs with traditional Chinese medication revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−4.15, −0.74], p = 0.005). For 2 RCTs with physiotherapy as the control intervention, no significant difference was found between acupuncture and control (MD = −1.19, 95% CI [−3.95, 1.56], p = 0.40). Among these 4 different types of control intervention, no significant subgroup differences were found (Chi-square = 0.82, p = 0.84; I2 = 0%) (Figure 5).

3.4.4. Subgroup Analysis of Therapeutic Strategy

Considering that a multidisciplinary approach for pain management has been more recommended for CPP patients [9,10], we conducted a subgroup analysis for different therapeutic strategy (adjunctive therapy or monotherapy). For the RCTs which assessed pain level with total pain scores of NIH-CPSI, pooled post-intervention data from 2 RCTs with adjunctive acupuncture intervention revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.27, 95% CI [−3.00, −1.55], p < 0.00001). Pooled post-intervention data from 5 RCTs with monotherapy of acupuncture also revealed significantly lower pain level in acupuncture than in control (MD = −2.06, 95% CI [−2.41, −1.70], p < 0.00001). No significant subgroup differences were found (Chi-square = 0.28, p = 0.60; I2 = 0%) (Figure 6a). For the RCTs which assessed pain level with VAS or NRS, pooled post-intervention data from 4 RCTs with adjunctive acupuncture intervention revealed significant lower pain levels in acupuncture than in control (MD = −1.70, 95% CI [−2.68, −0.72], p = 0.0006). Pooled post-intervention data from 4 RCTs with monotherapy of acupuncture also revealed significantly lower pain levels in acupuncture than in control (MD = −1.97, 95% CI [−2.79, −1.15], p < 0.00001). No significant subgroup differences were found (Chi-square = 0.17, p = 0.68; I2 = 0%) (Figure 6b).

3.4.5. Publication Bias

For the pooling studies that used VAS or NRS scores, no possible publication bias was identified using the funnel plot (Figure 7). Since the number of pooling studies that used NIH-CPSI scores were less than 10, no funnel plot asymmetry was investigated.

4. Discussion

In the present study, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs from PubMed and Embase to evaluate the treatment efficacy of acupuncture comparing to other interventions for CPP. The meta-analysis on post-intervention data revealed that acupuncture intervention has less pain level than control intervention for CPP, as measured by both VAS/NRS and total pain scores of NIH-CPSI assessment. Furthermore, our analysis of both adjunctive therapy and monotherapy revealed that acupuncture intervention has lower pain levels than control intervention for CPP. These results indicated that acupuncture may have beneficial effects for pain management of CPP, even when administrated as a monotherapy.
Although different pain assessment methods have been conducted among these 17 RCTs, acupuncture intervention has shown better treatment efficacy than control intervention in pain management of CPP. Since almost all acupuncture methods (expect laser acupuncture) have revealed better treatment efficacy than control intervention on CPP, the analgesic effect of acupuncture might be underpinned by multiple mechanisms at different levels of nervous system. Previous studies have indicated that acupuncture analgesia may be associated with neural activity, neurotransmitters, and cytokines in the peripheral, central and autonomic nervous systems [40,41,42]. Although the possible mechanisms between different acupuncture interventions and the possible correlations represented among these RCTs cannot be probed in the present study, it seems that the analgesic effect of acupuncture intervention on CPP may be more contributed from the central mechanisms than the peripheral mechanisms. This notion is supported by the fact that more remote but not local acupoints were selected for acupuncture treatment in these RCTs. In TCM, it is well known that different acupoints may have different effects on the body. These acupoints have been noted for their curative effects that can produce a certain clinical effect regardless of the intervention method applied. Hence, more studies are needed to clarify the possible contributions from central and peripheral mechanisms to optimize the treatment effect of acupuncture.
Moreover, the pain from CPP can be much relieved by acupuncture with monotherapy compared to control interventions. Acupuncture treatment is flexible and widely used, and pain control is one of the main indications of acupuncture treatment, especially for chronic pain [13]. In the present study, the clinical pain management efficacy of acupuncture, regardless of the intervention method, was better than that of Western medication and TCM medication, and have trans of better efficacy than standard care. It has been suggested that combining different approaches may be one of the more effective treatment strategies for CPP [9,10,11]. Our results further reveal that acupuncture can relieve the pain of CPP whether used in adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. In clinical practice, acupuncture has the characteristics of being able to cooperate with other treatment methods, and different acupuncture intervention process and methods can also be combined with each other in most situations. Acupuncture treatment is characterized by low cost and few side effects [35,43]. Combined with the results of the present study, acupuncture may not only beneficial for pain management on CPP even conducted with the strategy of monotherapy, but also may lower the direct or indirect huge medical resource consuming and/or personal economic costs.
There are many causes of CPP, including anatomical, functional, degenerative, organic and other different causes [1]. The results of the present study revealed that acupuncture-related treatments can generally alleviate the pain of CPP with different etiologies. Although acupuncture approach is generally effective in the treatment of CPP, there are very few published literatures on specific acupuncture methods. In the future, a focus on specific acupuncture methods for various causes of CPP could be explored. Large-scale or multi-center RCTs can be considered to further verify the clinical efficacy of acupuncture for pain management in CPP. These results may help to gain a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of acupuncture treatment on CPP and verify the cost-effectiveness between acupuncture compared to other interventions.
Some limitations of the present study should be noted. First, there is only one study indexed for some interventional methods such as moxibustion, ear acupuncture, abdomen acupuncture, and laser acupuncture, respectively. More studies are needed to verify the results from these RCTs. Second, pooling a few studies may lead to difficulties in obtaining a precise estimate of the between-studies variance [44]. Thus, a random effects model was implemented in the present study. Third, although the revised STRICTA guideline has been purposed in 2010, the majority of the included RCTs in the present study still have some concerns regarding the risk of bias, especially in the domain of “measurement of the outcome”. This is mainly due to the nature of self-reported subjective pain intensity (patients assessed the outcome themselves). Hence, the objective pain assessment system (e.g., automatic facial expression system) should be introduced in future studies.

5. Conclusions

Acupuncture intervention effectively help CPP patients on their pain management. The various methods of acupuncture, e.g., MA, EA, catgut implantation, moxibustion, abdominal acupuncture, and ear acupuncture, have higher treatment efficacy than Western medication or TCM medication. Moreover, the monotherapy of acupuncture has a higher efficacy for pain management than control interventions for CPP, as well as recommended adjunctive therapy. These results indicated that acupuncture may have beneficial effects for pain management of CPP, even when administrated as a monotherapy. Acupuncture may be potentially advantageous for patients who are intolerant to drugs, experience refractory pain, or have comorbidities, and it may alleviate the psychological symptoms.

Author Contributions

Study conceptualization, C.-H.T. and K.Y.-H.L.; article searching and screening, W.-C.L. and P.K.; article eligibility and risk assessment, C.-H.T., K.Y.-H.L. and Y.-H.C.; data extraction and formal analysis, W.-C.L. and Y.-C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-H.T. and Y.-C.C.; writing—review and editing, C.-H.T., K.Y.-H.L. and Y.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (MOST 109-2320-B-039-043 and 111-2320-B-039-031-MY2) and the China Medical University, Taiwan (CMU 109-MF-56 and 111-MF-45). The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; and in the writing of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in PubMed and Embase.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chronic Pelvic Pain. ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 218. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 135, e98–e109. [CrossRef]
  2. Latthe, P.; Latthe, M.; Say, L.; Gulmezoglu, M.; Khan, K.S. WHO systematic review of prevalence of chronic pelvic pain: A neglected reproductive health morbidity. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Sibert, L.; Rigaud, J.; Delavierre, D.; Labat, J.J. Chronic pelvic pain: Epidemiology and economic impact. Prog. Urol. 2010, 20, 872–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zondervan, K.T.; Yudkin, P.L.; Vessey, M.P.; Dawes, M.G.; Barlow, D.H.; Kennedy, S.H. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mathias, S.D.; Kuppermann, M.; Liberman, R.F.; Lipschutz, R.C.; Steege, J.F. Chronic pelvic pain: Prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 87, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Leow, H.W.; Szubert, W.; Horne, A.W. 45% of UK gynaecologists think chronic pelvic pain is managed badly. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018, 224, 200–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheong, Y.C.; Smotra, G.; Williams, A.C. Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 3, CD008797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Speer, L.M.; Mushkbar, S.; Erbele, T. Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women. Am. Fam. Physician 2016, 93, 380–387. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vincent, K.; Evans, E. An update on the management of chronic pelvic pain in women. Anaesthesia 2021, 76 (Suppl. 4), 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lamvu, G.; Carrillo, J.; Ouyang, C.; Rapkin, A. Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: A Review. JAMA 2021, 325, 2381–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grinberg, K.; Sela, Y.; Nissanholtz-Gannot, R. New Insights about Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CPPS). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vickers, A.J.; Cronin, A.M.; Maschino, A.C.; Lewith, G.; MacPherson, H.; Foster, N.E.; Sherman, K.J.; Witt, C.M.; Linde, K.; Acupuncture Trialists, C. Acupuncture for chronic pain: Individual patient data meta-analysis. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012, 172, 1444–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vickers, A.J.; Vertosick, E.A.; Lewith, G.; MacPherson, H.; Foster, N.E.; Sherman, K.J.; Irnich, D.; Witt, C.M.; Linde, K.; Acupuncture Trialists, C. Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Update of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. J. Pain 2018, 19, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Sun, Y.; Gan, T.J.; Dubose, J.W.; Habib, A.S. Acupuncture and related techniques for postoperative pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008, 101, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Yuan, Q.L.; Wang, P.; Liu, L.; Sun, F.; Cai, Y.S.; Wu, W.T.; Ye, M.L.; Ma, J.T.; Xu, B.B.; Zhang, Y.G. Acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of sham-controlled randomized clinical trials. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Chiu, H.Y.; Hsieh, Y.J.; Tsai, P.S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of acupuncture to reduce cancer-related pain. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2017, 26, e12457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Woo, H.L.; Ji, H.R.; Pak, Y.K.; Lee, H.; Heo, S.J.; Lee, J.M.; Park, K.S. The efficacy and safety of acupuncture in women with primary dysmenorrhea: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2018, 97, e11007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Xu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Li, T.; Zhao, Y.; Bu, H.; Song, S. Effects of acupuncture for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, Y.; Rao, K.; Zhan, K.; Shen, M.; Zheng, H.; Qin, S.; Wu, H.; Bian, Z.; Huang, S. Clinical evidence of acupuncture and moxibustion for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 1022145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Chang, S.C.; Hsu, C.H.; Hsu, C.K.; Yang, S.S.; Chang, S.J. The efficacy of acupuncture in managing patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2017, 36, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. MacPherson, H.; Altman, D.G.; Hammerschlag, R.; Youping, L.; Taixiang, W.; White, A.; Moher, D.; Group, S.R. Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): Extending the CONSORT statement. PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Chen, G.; Xiang, J.; Ouyang, L.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, H.; Chen, J.; Li, T. Acupuncture combined with western medicine for CP/CPPS:a randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2016, 36, 1247–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, L.F.; Jin, X.F.; Li, B.W.; Zhan, M.J.; Hu, H.T. Herb-separated moxibustion on dysmenorrhea in ovarian endometriosis: A randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2020, 40, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, T.; Wang, S.Y.; Huang, Z.Q.; Cai, Q.H.; Zhang, S.; Wang, S.; Tian, T. CO2 laser moxibustion for endometriosis related pelvic pain of cold coagulation and blood stasis: A randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2022, 42, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, Y.H.; Wang, X.; Liang, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, D.M.; Shi, L. Acupuncture combined with western medication on chronic pelvic pain after pelvic inflammatory disease: A multi-center randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2021, 41, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, Y.; Li, X.; Li, F.; Yu, W.; Wang, Z. Clinical research of chronic pelvic cavity pain syndrome treated with acupoint catgut embedding therapy. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2015, 35, 561–566. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ma, Y.; Wang, Z.L.; Sun, Z.X.; Men, B.; Shen, B.Q. Efficacy observation on chronic pelvic pain syndrome of damp-heat stagnation pattern treated with acupoint catgut embedding therapy. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2014, 34, 351–354. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu, J.M.; Zhuo, Y.Y.; Qin, X.L.; Yu, X.Y.; Hu, S.; Ning, Y. Pelvic-sacral tendon-regulation needling technique of acupuncture combined with manipulative reduction in treatment of postpartum pelvic girdle pain: A randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2020, 40, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiang, D.F.; Sun, Q.Z.; Liang, X.F. Effect of abdominal acupuncture on pain of pelvic cavity in patients with endometriosis. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2011, 31, 113–116. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, X.; Li, W. Efficacy on endometriosis treated with electroacupuncture. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chin. Acupunct. Moxibustion 2015, 35, 323–326. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, X.Y.; Luo, S.B.; Zhang, J.Y.; Meng, Z.C. Triple acupuncture at the Qugu acupoint as an adjunctive therapy for type-Ⅲ chronic prostatitis: Analysis of short- and long-term clinical effects. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue = Natl. J. Androl. 2017, 23, 464–467. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chong, O.T.; Critchley, H.O.D.; Williams, L.J.; Haraldsdottir, E.; Horne, A.W.; Fallon, M. The impact of meridian balance method electro-acupuncture treatment on chronic pelvic pain in women: A three-armed randomised controlled feasibility study using a mixed-methods approach. Br. J. Pain 2018, 12, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Küçük, E.V.; Suçeken, F.Y.; Bindayı, A.; Boylu, U.; Onol, F.F.; Gümüş, E. Effectiveness of acupuncture on chronic prostatitis-chronic pelvic pain syndrome category IIIB patients: A prospective, randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial. Urology 2015, 85, 636–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nicolian, S.; Butel, T.; Gambotti, L.; Durand, M.; Filipovic-Pierucci, A.; Mallet, A.; Kone, M.; Durand-Zaleski, I.; Dommergues, M. Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture versus standard care for pelvic and low back pain in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Qin, Z.; Zang, Z.; Zhou, K.; Wu, J.; Zhou, J.; Kwong, J.S.W.; Liu, Z. Acupuncture for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Sham Acupuncture Controlled Trial. J. Urol. 2018, 200, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sahin, S.; Bicer, M.; Eren, G.A.; Tas, S.; Tugcu, V.; Tasci, A.I.; Cek, M. Acupuncture relieves symptoms in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A randomized, sham-controlled trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015, 18, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Svahn Ekdahl, A.; Fagevik Olsén, M.; Jendman, T.; Gutke, A. Maintenance of physical activity level, functioning and health after non-pharmacological treatment of pelvic girdle pain with either transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation or acupuncture: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e046314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vas, J.; Cintado, M.C.; Aranda-Regules, J.M.; Aguilar, I.; Rivas Ruiz, F. Effect of ear acupuncture on pregnancy-related pain in the lower back and posterior pelvic girdle: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Acta Obstet. Et Gynecol. Scand. 2019, 98, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, T.; Zhang, W.W.; Chu, Y.X.; Wang, Y.Q. Acupuncture for Pain Management: Molecular Mechanisms of Action. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2020, 48, 793–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, I.S.; Cheon, S.; Park, J.Y. Central and Peripheral Mechanism of Acupuncture Analgesia on Visceral Pain: A Systematic Review. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2019, 2019, 1304152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Lin, J.G.; Chen, W.L. Acupuncture analgesia: A review of its mechanisms of actions. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2008, 36, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Witt, C.M.; Pach, D.; Brinkhaus, B.; Wruck, K.; Tag, B.; Mank, S.; Willich, S.N. Safety of acupuncture: Results of a prospective observational study with 229,230 patients and introduction of a medical information and consent form. Forsch. Komplementmed. 2009, 16, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.; Rothstein, H.R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2010, 1, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Healthcare 11 00830 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systemic review process.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systemic review process.
Healthcare 11 00830 g001
Healthcare 11 00830 g002 550
Figure 2. Summary for the items of risk of bias in each included study [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Figure 2. Summary for the items of risk of bias in each included study [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Healthcare 11 00830 g002
Healthcare 11 00830 g003 550
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using total pain scores of NIH-CPSI [23,27,28,32,34,36,37].
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using total pain scores of NIH-CPSI [23,27,28,32,34,36,37].
Healthcare 11 00830 g003
Healthcare 11 00830 g004 550
Figure 4. Meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using VAS/NRS and subgroup analysis with different acupuncture interventions [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Figure 4. Meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using VAS/NRS and subgroup analysis with different acupuncture interventions [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Healthcare 11 00830 g004
Healthcare 11 00830 g005 550
Figure 5. Subgroup analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using VAS/NRS with different control interventions [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Figure 5. Subgroup analysis of the studies evaluating the pain management effect of acupuncture using VAS/NRS with different control interventions [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Healthcare 11 00830 g005
Healthcare 11 00830 g006 550
Figure 6. Subgroup analysis of therapeutic strategy on (a) total pain scores of NIH-CPSI [23,27,28,32,34,36,37] and (b) VAS/NRS [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Figure 6. Subgroup analysis of therapeutic strategy on (a) total pain scores of NIH-CPSI [23,27,28,32,34,36,37] and (b) VAS/NRS [24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,38,39].
Healthcare 11 00830 g006
Healthcare 11 00830 g007 550
Figure 7. The funnel plot with the studies using VAS/NRS as measurement variable.
Figure 7. The funnel plot with the studies using VAS/NRS as measurement variable.
Healthcare 11 00830 g007
Table
Table 1. Main characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Main characteristics of included studies.
StudiesPopulation TypeSample Size
Intervention/Control		Age (Mean)
Intervention/Control		OutcomesCourse of TreatmentFollow-Up Visit
Xiang 2011 [30]Patients with endometriosis 30/2834.6/34.6VAS 4 (0–10)
McGill pain questionnaire		3 months
(3 MC 7 cycle)		NA 8
Zhang 2015 [31]Patients with endometriosis36/3633/35VAS 4 (0–10)6 monthsNA 8
Chong 2018 [33]Women with CPP 1 over 6 months 9/634.7/31.4NRS 5 (0–10)4 weeks12th week
Nicolian 2019 [35]Pregnant women with pelvic girdle and low back pain96/10331/30.7NRS 5 (0–10)4 weeksNA 8
Vas 2019 [39]Pregnant women at 24–36 weeks of gestation with pregnancy-related lower back and/or posterior pelvic girdle pain55/5431.4/31.7VAS 4 (0–100)2 weeks3 months postpartum, and 1 year after randomization
Chen 2020 [24]Patients with ovarian endometriosis dysmenorrhea24/2333/32VAS 4 (0–10)3 monthsNA 8
Wu 2020 [29]Patients with postpartum pelvic girdle pain40/4028/28VAS 4 (0–10)3 weeksNA 8
Liu 2021 [26]CPP 1 patients with sequelae of pelvic inflammatory disease 62/6335/36VAS 4 (0–10) Lower abdomen3 months
(3 MC cycles)		NA 8
Svahn Ekdahl 2021 [38]Patients with pelvic girdle pain 12–48 weeks41/4530.5/31.1VAS 4 (0–10)5 weeksNA 8
Li 2022 [25]Endometriosis related pelvic pain of cold coagulation and blood stasis.38/3833/37VAS 4 (0–10)4 weeks3-month after treatment
Ma 2014 [28]Patients with CP/CPPS 2 (NIH 3 category IIIB)37/2931/33NIH-CPSI 6 score Pain (0–21)8 weeksNA 8
Kucuk 2015 [34]Patients with CP/CPPS 226/28All subjects’ mean: 33.3NIH-CPSI 6 pain total score (0–21)7 weeksNA 8
Ma 2015 [27]Patients with CP/CPPS 2 (NIH 3 category IIIB)80/8035/33NIH-CPSI 6 score Pain (0–21)8 weeksNA 8
Sahin 2015 [37]Patients with CP/CPPS 2 (NIH 3 category IIIB)45/4632.1/32.8NIH-CPSI 6 pain score (0–21)6 weeksAt 8th, 16th, and 24th week
Chen 2016 [23]Patients with CP/CPPS 230/2934/34NIH-CPSI 6 Pain total score (0–21)24 daysNA 8
Zhang 2017 [32]Patients with CP/CPPS 2 (NIH 3 category IIIB)45/45All subjects’ mean: 30.6NIH-CPSI 6 Pain total score (0–21)4 weeksNA 8
Qin 2018 [36]Patients with CP/CPPS 34/3433.8/35.1NIH-CPSI 6 Pain total score (0–21)8 weeks32 weeks
1 CPP: Chronic pelvic pain; 2 CP/CPPS: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome; 3 NIH: National institute of health; 4 VAS: Visual analog scale; 5 NRS: Numerical rating scale; 6 NIH-CPSI: National Institutes of Health—Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index; 7 MC: Menstrual cycle; 8 NA: Not available.
Table
Table 2. Intervention details of included studies.
Table 2. Intervention details of included studies.
StudiesInterventionTreatment Schedule
Acupuncture GroupControl Group
Xiang 2011 [30]Abdominal acupuncture
Acupoint: CV12, CV10, CV6…etc.		Chinese Medicine: Tianqi Tongjing CapsuleFor 3 MC cycle, once each 1~2 days, at least 3 time each MC cycle
Zhang 2015 [31]Electro-acupuncture
Acupoints: CV6, CV4, CV3, EXCA1, SP8, SP6, LI4, LR3. EA on CV4 and CV3		Mifeprisone tablet 12.5 mg once a day for 6 monthsonce every 2 days for 6 months, suspend treatment during menstruation
Chong 2018 [33]BMEA treatment (BMEA + TCM HC)
Acupoints: the most painful Ashi points (tight and tender points) with electrical stimulation		TCM HC interventions twice a week for 4 weeksTwice a week for 4 weeks
Nicolian 2019 [35]Acupuncture plus standard care
Acupoints: Bilateral BL40 and Ashi points		Standard care: pregnancy belt, lifestyle recommendations, and exercisesTwice in first week, then once per week in next 3 weeks. 5 sessions.
Vas 2019 [39]Standard obstetric care plus ear acupunctureStandard obstetric care2 weeks
Chen 2020 [24]Herb-separated moxibustion was applied at hypogastrium and lumbosacral area for 30 minGiving ibuprofen sustained-release capsule when necessaryOnce a week for 3 months
Wu 2020 [29]Acupuncture plus manipulative reduction
Acupoints: GV4, BL25, GV3, BL32, BL33, GB30, and GB34		Manipulative reductiononce every two days, three times a week and 3 treatments taken as one course. In total, 3 courses of treatment were required (3 weeks)
Liu 2021 [26]Electro-acupuncture
Acupoints: CV4, ST28, ST29, BL23, and BL32
Disperse-dense wave, 2 Hz/15 Hz of frequency for 30 min		Ibuprofen sustained-release capsules 10 days before menstruation, 0.3 g each time, once a day per menstrual cycle for 3 menstrual cyclesonce a day, 10 days per menstrual cycle, for 3 menstrual cycles
Svahn Ekdahl 2021 [38]Manual acupuncture
Acupoint: GV 20, bil LI 4, bil BL 26, bil BL 32, bil BL 33, bil BL 54, bil KI 11, bil BL 60, bil EX 21, bil GB 30, bil SP 12, bil ST 36		TENS device at home. Treatment area: unilaterally or bilaterally over the sacroiliac joint and gluteal muscles for
dorsal pelvic pain or in the groin area for pubic pain.
Intensity: High frequency stimulation (80 Hz)		Acupuncture: 10 acupuncture sessions (two sessions per week)
TENS: At least 30 min per day for 5 weeks.
Li 2022 [25]CO2 laser acupuncture (100 mW, area 2 cm, distance to skin 3 cm)
Acupoint: bil Zigong (EX-CA 1)		Sham laser acupuncture (0 mW, area 2 cm, distance to skin 3 cm)
Acupoint: bil Zigong (EX-CA 1)		Once every other day, 30 min each time, 3 times a week for 4 weeks.
Ma 2014 [28]Catgut embedding acupuncture
Acupoints: SP6, CV1, LI11, ST36, CV3, and BL23		Tamsulosin hydrochloride, 0.2 mg, once daily
Indomethacin, 75 mg, once daily		Once each 2-week for 8 weeks
Kucuk 2015 [34]Electro-acupuncture
Acupoints: UB28, GB41, LIV3, LI4, SP6, and SP8		Levofloxacin 500 mg once daily and ibuprofen 200 mg twice daily for 6 weeksTwice a week for 7 weeks
Ma 2015 [27]Catgut embedding acupuncture
Acupoints: SP 6, CV 1, CV 2, BL 54, and BL 23		Tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.2 mg once daily
Indomethacin 75 mg three times daily		Once every two weeks; the treatment of 4 weeks made one session, and two sessions were required.
Sahin 2015 [37]Acupuncture
Acupoints: Bilateral BL33, BL34, BL54, CV1, CV4, SP6, and SP9		Sham acupuncture
Acupoints: 1 cm left of each selected acupoint bilaterally (BL33, BL34, BL54, CV1, CV4, SP6 and SP9)		The acupuncture needles were lasted for 20 min in both groups and half of this period covered by needle stimulation through rotation.
The procedure was repeated every week for a period 6 week
Chen 2016 [23]Manual acupuncture plus western medicine
Scalp points GV24, GV22, GV21, GV20, BL6, BL7.
Body points: CV3, CV4, BL28, and BL32		Levofloxacin 200 mg twice daily
Tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.2 mg once daily		Once a day, 12 days treatments as one session and total 2 session were given.
Zhang 2017 [32]Triple acupuncture at the Qugu (RN2) acupoint 20 min, twice a week plus Levofloxacin Mesylate Tablets 0.5 g three times daily, and Terazosin Hydrochloride Capsules 2 mg once daily for 4 weeksLevofloxacin Mesylate Tablets 0.5 g three times daily, and Terazosin Hydrochloride Capsules 2 mg once daily for 4 weeksTwice a week for 4 weeks
Qin 2018 [36]Manual acupuncture
Acupoints: Bilateral BL33, BL23, SP6, and BL35		Sham non-penetration acupuncture
Same procedure as Verum acupuncture groups with placebo needles		3 treatment sessions per week for 8 consecutive weeks for a total of 24 sessions
CV: Conception Vessel; SP: Spleen Meridian; LI: Large Intestine Meridian; BL: Bladder Meridian; GV: Governor Vessel; GB: Gallbladder Meridian; ST: Stomach Meridian; KI: Kidney Meridian; EX: Ex-Meridian; UB: Urinary Bladder Meridian; RN2: Qugu; EA: Electropuncture; TENS: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator; BEMA: The meridian balance method electroacupuncture; TCM HC: Traditional Chinese medicine health consultation; bil: bilateral.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, K.Y.-H.; Chang, Y.-C.; Lu, W.-C.; Kotha, P.; Chen, Y.-H.; Tu, C.-H. Analgesic Efficacy of Acupuncture on Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Study. Healthcare 2023, 11, 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060830

AMA Style

Lin KY-H, Chang Y-C, Lu W-C, Kotha P, Chen Y-H, Tu C-H. Analgesic Efficacy of Acupuncture on Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Study. Healthcare. 2023; 11(6):830. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060830

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Kent Yu-Hsien, Yi-Chuan Chang, Wen-Chi Lu, Peddanna Kotha, Yi-Hung Chen, and Cheng-Hao Tu. 2023. "Analgesic Efficacy of Acupuncture on Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Study" Healthcare 11, no. 6: 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060830

APA Style

Lin, K. Y. -H., Chang, Y. -C., Lu, W. -C., Kotha, P., Chen, Y. -H., & Tu, C. -H. (2023). Analgesic Efficacy of Acupuncture on Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Study. Healthcare, 11(6), 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060830

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop