Trial reportBMC women's health2022
Therapeutic ultrasound versus injection of local anesthetic in the treatment of women with chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal myofascial syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05851742 (Effects of Myofascial Release With and Without Electrical Stimulation on Pain and Functionality in Women With Chronic Pelvic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effects of Myofascial Release With and Without Electrical Stimulation on Pain and Functionality in Women With Chronic Pelvic Pain
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of low-intensity ultrasound therapy for myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Myofascial Pain Syndrome: An Update on Clinical Characteristics, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Muscle & nerve · 2025Review
- Silver needle thermal conduction therapy relieves pain in rats with myofascial pain syndrome.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Fascial Hydrodissection with Eperisone: A Retrospective Study on Efficacy and Safety in Lumbodorsal Fasciitis Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Review
- Importance of an Interdisciplinary Approach in the Treatment of Women with Endometriosis and Chronic Pelvic Pain.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Article
- Global Status and Future Trends of Fascia and Pain Research in 2013-2022: Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace and VOSviewer.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as recurrent or continuous pain in the lower abdomen or pelvis, either non-menstrual or noncyclical, lasting for at least 6 months. There is strong evidence that up to 85% of patients with CPP have serious dysfunctions of the musculoskeletal system, including abdominal myofascial pain syndrome (AMPS). AMPS is characterized by intense and deep abdominal pain, originating from hyperirritable trigger points, usually located within a musculoskeletal band or its lining fascia. In the literature, there are few studies that address AMPS.
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) and injection of local anesthetic (IA) to improve pain in women with abdominal myofascial syndrome secondary to CPP. STUDY
designRandomized controlled clinical trial.
settingTertiary University Hospital. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized clinical trial was conducted, patients were allocated to two types of treatment: group TUS (n = 18), and group IA (n = 20). The instruments used for evaluation and reassessment were the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Categorical Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and SF-36 quality of life assessment questionnaire. They were evaluated before starting treatment, 1 week after the end of treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months.
resultsTUS and IA were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life through the variables analyzed among study participants. There was no significant difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: absence of blinding; exclusion of women with comorbidities and other causes of CPP, the absence of a placebo group, the difference between the number of sessions used for each technique, and the COVID-19.
conclusionTreatment with TUS and IA were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life in women with AMPS secondary to CPP. TRAIL REGISTRATION: We declare that this clinical trial has been registered under the number [(ReBEC) no. RBR-39czsv] on 07/18/2018 in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.