ArticleSexual medicine reviews2026
Genitopelvic pain in racially/ethnically, sexually, and gender/sex minoritized samples in Canada and the United States: a scoping review.
Article in Sexual medicine reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVery little research exists on genitopelvic pain in racially/ethnically, sexually, and gender/sex minoritized samples despite its high prevalence among these groups. Existing frameworks of genitopelvic pain are based largely on White, heterosexual, cisgender women samples; applying these frameworks to minoritized samples may be prone to inaccuracies, as they do not account for minority stress and strength, social safety, and broader social determinants of health that structure exposure to pain, access to care, and health outcomes among marginalized populations.
objectiveThe main purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize findings of genitopelvic pain research published on racially/ethnically, sexually, and gender/sex minoritized samples in Canada and the United States.
methodsAfter removal of duplicates, the abstracts of 1330 articles were independently screened for eligibility for full-text review, of which 974 were excluded. Of the remaining 356, 59 studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. Results were organized according to the underrepresented sample of interest (racially/ethnically, sexually, or gender/sex minoritized) and subcategorized according to study aims focusing on prevalence, pain characteristics and experiences, minority stressors and strengths (eg, stigma, coping, resilience), social safety (eg, relational and healthcare contexts), and social determinants of health.
resultsResults indicated that genitopelvic pain is prevalent, there are similarities and differences in pain characteristics and experiences, and variables related to minority stress and strength, social safety, and social determinants of health-when examined-were associated with pain prevalence, severity, coping, and care trajectories in racially/ethnically, sexually, and gender/sex minoritized samples.
conclusionGenitopelvic pain is common in racially/ethnically, sexually, and gender/sex minoritized individuals and is meaningfully shaped by minority stress processes, minority strength adaptations, social safety, and social determinants of health, underscoring the need for theory-informed and equity-oriented pain frameworks.
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.