Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Public Health and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

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

Pallavi Latthe1*, Manish Latthe2, Lale Say3, Metin Gülmezoglu3 and Khalid S Khan4

Author Affiliations

1 Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK

2 Tower Hill Medical Centre, Great Barr, Birmingham

3 UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

4 Academic Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Public Health 2006, 6:177  doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-177

Published: 6 July 2006

Abstract

Background

Health care planning for chronic pelvic pain (CPP), an important cause of morbidity amongst women is hampered due to lack of clear collated summaries of its basic epidemiological data. We systematically reviewed worldwide literature on the prevalence of different types of CPP to assess the geographical distribution of data, and to explore sources of variation in its estimates.

Methods

We identified data available from Medline (1966 to 2004), Embase (1980 to 2004), PsycINFO (1887 to 2003), LILACS (1982 to 2004), Science Citation index, CINAHL (January 1980 to 2004) and hand searching of reference lists. Two reviewers extracted data independently, using a piloted form, on participants' characteristics, study quality and rates of CPP. We considered a study to be of high quality (valid) if had at least three of the following features: prospective design, validated measurement tool, adequate sampling method, sample size estimation and response rate >80%. We performed both univariate and multivariate meta-regression analysis to explore heterogeneity of results across studies.

Results

There were 178 studies (459975 participants) in 148 articles. Of these, 106 studies were (124259 participants) on dysmenorrhoea, 54 (35973 participants) on dyspareunia and 18 (301756 participants) on noncyclical pain. There were only 19/95 (20%) less developed and 1/45 (2.2%) least developed countries with relevant data in contrast to 22/43 (51.2%) developed countries. Meta-regression analysis showed that rates of pain varied according to study quality features. There were 40 (22.5%) high quality studies with representative samples. Amongst them, the rate of dysmenorrhoea was 16.8 to 81%, that of dyspareunia was 8 to 21.8%, and that for noncyclical pain was 2.1 to 24%.

Conclusion

There were few valid population based estimates of disease burden due to CPP from less developed countries. The variation in rates of CPP worldwide was due to variable study quality. Where valid data were available, a high disease burden of all types of pelvic pain was found.