Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2026
Radiofrequency Versus Myofascial Therapy in Women With Myofascial Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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.
- Comment on: Radiofrequency Versus Myofascial Therapy in Women with Myofascial Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Response to the article 'Role of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Women with Obstetric Sphincter Injuries: Narrative Review'.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisChronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 5.7-26.6% of women and can severely affect quality of life (QoL). When combined with myofascial syndrome, CPP is often more severe and challenging to manage. Myofascial manual therapy (MMT) is the standard conservative treatment, whereas capacitive-resistive monopolar radiofrequency (RF) may be an effective alternative based on benefits seen in other musculoskeletal disorders. However, its standalone efficacy in women with CPP and a myofascial syndrome has not been established.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial at a tertiary university hospital, women with CPP and myofascial syndrome were assigned to on-RF (active RF), off-RF (sham RF), or MMT. The on-RF and off-RF groups were double-blinded, with both participants and the physiotherapist unaware of device activation. A fourth group, no treatment, served as an observational control. Pain intensity, QoL, and sexual function were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. Statistical analyses included within-group pre-post comparisons and between-group differences using ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests.
resultsA total of 80 women were included in the study (20 per arm). The on-RF group demonstrated the greatest reduction in pain (mean decrease 3.98 points on the NRS, 95% CI 2.85 to 5.10; p < 0.001). Significant changes in QoL were observed in both RF groups, whereas no statistically significant differences were found in sexual function. Between-group analysis showed that on-RF reduced pain more than off-RF (mean difference -2.1, 95% CI -3.3 to -0.8; p = 0.002)
conclusionsRadiofrequency (RF) therapy significantly reduces pain in women with CPP and myofascial syndrome compared with off-RF, MMT, or no treatment. Further studies should evaluate long-term outcomes and optimal treatment parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42183849What 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.