S'abonner

Association between dysmenorrhea and chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies - 01/09/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.03.002 
Rui Li, BMedSci a, , Beixi Li, MD, MPH e, Donna A. Kreher, PhD b, c, Amy R. Benjamin, MD c, Ashley Gubbels, MD c, Shannon M. Smith, PhD b, c, d
a Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 
b Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 
c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 
d Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 
e Schwarzman College, Tsinghua University, Beijing, the People's Republic of China 

Corresponding author: Rui Li, BMedSci.

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the study was to synthesize the epidemiological findings for the associations between dysmenorrhea, including primary dysmenorrhea and endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea and any chronic pain conditions, including chronic pelvic pain, and chronic nonpelvic pain.

Data Sources

The data sources included PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to December 2019.

Study Eligibility Criteria

The study criteria included observational population-based studies in which the relationship between dysmenorrhea and the presence or severity of chronic pain was examined.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Each study was double coded and evaluated for bias based on the modified Newcastle and Ottawa Scale. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to quantify the associations between dysmenorrhea and the presence of chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain.

Results

Out of 9452 records, 32 studies were included, with 14 reporting associations between dysmenorrhea and chronic pelvic pain, and 20 for dysmenorrhea and chronic nonpelvic pain. Primary dysmenorrhea and endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea were examined in 7 studies, respectively. More than 30% of the studies were categorized as poor quality, 56% as moderate, and 12.5% as high. Dysmenorrhea was positively associated with both the presence and severity of chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain conditions. Based on 6689 women from 8 studies, those with chronic pelvic pain had 2.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.98–2.99, I2, 42%) times the odds of having dysmenorrhea compared with those without. Based on 3750 women from 11 studies, those with chronic nonpelvic pain had 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 1.84–3.72, I2, 72%) times the odds of having dysmenorrhea compared with those without. Overall, dysmenorrhea was associated with 2.50 (95% confidence interval, 2.02–3.10) times the odds of chronic pain, which did not differ by chronic pelvic vs chronic nonpelvic pain, community vs clinical populations, or different geographical regions.

Conclusions

Dysmenorrhea may be a general risk factor for chronic pain, although whether primary dysmenorrhea increases the risk for chronic pain is unclear. Given that adolescence is a sensitive period for neurodevelopment, elucidating the role of primary dysmenorrhea in pain chronicity in future longitudinal studies is important for preventing both chronic pelvic and nonpelvic pain.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : chronic nonpelvic pain, chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, menstrual pain, meta-analysis, pelvic pain, primary dysmenorrhea, systematic review


Plan


 The authors report no conflict of interest.


© 2020  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 223 - N° 3

P. 350-371 - septembre 2020 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy: state of the science
  • Marianne Leruez-Ville, Ina Foulon, Robert Pass, Yves Ville
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Special ambulatory gynecologic considerations in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and implications for future practice
  • Megan A. Cohen, Anna M. Powell, Jenell S. Coleman, Jean M. Keller, Alison Livingston, Jean R. Anderson

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.