ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological Interventions for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle-based therapeutic platforms for inflammatory disorders of the urinary system: Engineering local delivery, biointerface regulation, and smart responsive therapy.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Huang'e Capsule Alleviates Experimental Autoimmune Prostatitis in Rats Through Regulation of Linoleic Acid and Arachidonic Acid Metabolism by Metabolomics.Biomedical chromatography : BMC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a prevalent and debilitating urological condition affecting approximately 2-10% of men globally, with a substantial impact on quality of life, productivity, and healthcare utilization. Despite the availability of multiple pharmacological options, their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for CP/CPPS based on the NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar was conducted from database inception to January 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological therapies with placebo. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in NIH-CPSI total score, with a clinically meaningful improvement defined as a ≥6-point reduction. Pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
resultsAlpha-blockers demonstrated the most consistent benefit (MD: -5.13; 95% CI: -6.87 to -3.39; Low certainty), followed by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) (MD: -3.14; 95% CI: -5.38 to -0.90; Low certainty) and analgesics (MD: -2.47; 95% CI: -4.24 to -0.70; Low certainty). In contrast, antibiotics (MD: -2.45; 95% CI: -5.53 to 0.64; Very Low certainty), pollen extracts (MD: -2.56; 95% CI: -10.83 to 5.71; Very Low certainty), and other agents such as botulinum toxin A and anticonvulsants (MD: -6.94; 95% CI: -19.79 to 5.91; Very Low certainty) did not achieve statistical significance. The certainty for all interventions was downgraded from High due to risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (
conclusionsAmong available pharmacological options, alpha-blockers and TCM provide the most reliable symptom improvement in men with CP/CPPS, while analgesics offer modest benefit. Antibiotics, pollen extracts, and other agents show inconsistent or non-significant effects. The high heterogeneity and generally low certainty of evidence reflect variability in study quality and populations, underscoring the need for rigorously designed, standardized future trials to guide patient-centered therapy selection.
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.