↓ Skip to main content

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in this source, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012551.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan VA Franco, Tarek Turk, Jae Hung Jung, Yu-Tian Xiao, Stanislav Iakhno, Virginia Garrote, Valeria Vietto

Abstract

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017. We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods. We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture may result in little to no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may not reduce sexual dysfunction when compared with sham procedure (MD in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Scale -0.50, 95% CI -3.46 to 2.46, low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.2. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.3. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). This programme may not reduce anxiety or depression (low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction or quality of life.4. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.5. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). This treatment probably improves sexual dysfunction (MD in the IIEF Scale MD 3.34, 95% CI 2.68 to 4.00, one study, 60 participants, moderate QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.6. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events. We found no information regarding sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.7. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of most of the other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery. Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 26 24%
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 33%
Unspecified 33 30%
Psychology 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Other 12 11%