ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Pain and Quality of Life in Women with Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging Non-Pharmacological Approaches in Endometriosis: Mechanistic Insights into Phototherapy, Hyperthermia, and Acupuncture-Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological disorder characterized by pain and impaired quality of life (QoL). While pharmacological and surgical options exist, their limitations necessitate complementary strategies. The comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions remains uncertain. Objective: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate and rank the efficacy of non-pharmacological therapies for pain and QoL in women with endometriosis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CNKI from inception to August 31, 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared structured non-pharmacological interventions-acupuncture (ACU), exercise (EXE), nutritional supplementation (NUT), physical therapy (PHY), or psychological interventions (PSY)-against conventional care (CON). Primary outcomes were pain (overall, pelvic, dysmenorrhea) and QoL; the secondary outcome was anxiety. Results: Thirty-three RCTs involving 2323 women were included. For overall pain, PHY (SMD = -1.44), ACU (SMD = -1.27), and PSY (SMD = -1.22) were significantly superior to CON, with PHY ranking highest (SUCRA = 74.4%). ACU was most effective for pelvic pain (SMD = -4.53; SUCRA = 99.1%), while PHY was optimal for dysmenorrhea (SMD = -1.30; SUCRA = 82.3%). Both ACU (SMD = 4.09) and PHY (SMD = 4.18) significantly improved QoL compared to CON. No statistically significant differences were observed among interventions for anxiety. Conclusion: Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly PHY and ACU, provide significant benefits for pain and QoL in endometriosis, with subtype-specific advantages. These findings support their integration into multimodal management pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.