SynthesisWomen's health (London, England)
The role of catastrophizing in chronic cyclical pelvic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reframing Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: Central Sensitization, Psychosocial Burden, and Mechanism-Based Multidisciplinary Care.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Pain-related support seeking? Situating the response to pain within the social context using a sample of women experiencing menstrual pain.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Psychological, Relational, and Fertility-Related Characteristics of Italian Women with Vulvodynia: A Comparative Study with Controls.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The Role of Mindfulness Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- The relationship between psychological factors and pain in endometriosis.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cramps) is one of the most common gynecological complaints in women and girls. Dysmenorrhea may be a condition itself or a result of another medical condition, including endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. Research examining the relationship between menstrual pain ratings and catastrophizing has produced mixed results.
objectiveTo review and meta-analyze the relationship between catastrophizing and pain ratings of chronic cyclical pelvic pain.
designCross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies that reported the relationship between menstrual/pelvic pain and catastrophizing were included. Study populations had to include healthy menstruating persons or persons with a condition associated with cyclical pelvic pain including primary dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and/or chronic pelvic pain. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsA systematic search of articles published since 2012 on PubMed, PsychInfo, CINHAL, and Medline was conducted in January and rerun in November of 2022. Search terms included cyclical pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, pelvic pain, and catastrophizing. Data extraction was completed independently by two extractors and cross-checked for errors. A random-effects meta-regression was used to synthesize the data using restricted maximum likelihood.
resultsTwenty-five studies examining 4,540 participants were included. A random effects model found a meta-correlation between catastrophizing and pain of
conclusionA systematic review and meta-analysis found that catastrophizing had a small but significant positive association with pain ratings. Patients experiencing cyclical pelvic pain may benefit from interventions targeting the psychological management of pain. REGISTRATION: This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO on 14 January 2022. Registration number: CRD42022295328.
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.