Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Assessment of Perigenital Sensitivity and Prostatic Mast Cell Activation in a Mouse Model of Neonatal Maternal Separation
Published on: August 13, 2015
[Non-pharmacological interventions in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A network meta-analysis]
Xiao-Hui Wei1, Meng-Yao Ma2, Hang Su3
1Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shandong University of Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250000, China.
Objective:
To evaluate the efficacy of shockwave therapy, acupuncture, hyperthermia, biofeedback therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, magnetotherapy and ultrasound therapy in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome(CP/CPPS), and to provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making.
Methods:
Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases for randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on the effects of different interventions on CP/CPPS from the establishment of the databases to August 2024. We evaluated the quality of the included literature and extracted the relevant data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, followed by network meta-analysis using Revman 5.3, R 4.33 and Stata17 software.
Results:
A total of 25 RCTs involving 1 794 cases were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that electrical nerve stimulation, shockwave therapy, biofeedback therapy, magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy and acupuncture were significantly superior to conventional medication and placebo in the total NIH-CPSI scores(P< 0.05), and so were electrical nerve stimulation and shockwave therapy to acupuncture and hyperthermia(P< 0.05), magnetic therapy to hyperthermia, and ultrasound therapy to placebo(P< 0.05). Shockwave therapy, biofeedback therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, magnetotherapy and ultrasound therapy achieved remarkably better clinical efficacy than conventional medication and placebo in the treatment of CP/CPPS, and so did shockwave therapy than electrical nerve stimulation, hyperthermia, ultrasonic therapy, magnetotherapy and acupuncture.
Conclusion:
For the treatment of CP/CPPS, electrical nerve stimulation is advantageous over the other interventions in improving total NIH-CPSI scores, and shockwave therapy is advantageous in relieving pain symptoms and clinical efficacy. This conclusion, however, needs to be further verified by more high-quality clinical studies.
