ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
Chronic pelvic and related genital pain in transgender and gender-diverse people: a scoping review.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and related genital pain are disabling and multifaceted, but understudied in transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people. Methods: In this scoping review, we mapped evidence on prevalence, aetiology, assessment, and management across gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT), surgical, and community contexts. Following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidance, we searched ten databases from database inception to 30 July 2025, supplemented by citation chasing, and including primary-data reports of duration-defined CPP (persistent or recurrent pelvic pain for at least three months) or related pelvic and genital pain within a broad chronic pain framework. The search protocol was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/mk6cp). Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted published data. Findings: 24 reports representing 23 unique cohorts and 5527 TGD participants were included. Only one study explicitly estimated duration-defined CPP prevalence, reporting 17·7% among TGD adults assigned female at birth. Broader pelvic and genital pain outcomes ranged from 9·6% to 72·2% across five studies, but should not be interpreted as duration-defined CPP prevalence. Four non-mutually exclusive domains were identified: hormonal and tissue-mediated, pelvic floor and musculoskeletal, surgical and anatomical, and psychosocial and trauma-related. Assessment and diagnostic pathways were heterogeneous. Management evidence was very limited and derived almost entirely from observational studies, programme audits, and case reports; only one short randomised trial evaluated an intervention. Interpretation: Our findings support gender-affirming, multidisciplinary evaluation while highlighting the need for standardised CPP definitions, validated TGD-specific patient-reported measures, prospective cohorts, and adequately powered interventional trials. Funding: None.
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.