Chronic pelvic and related genital pain in transgender and gender-diverse people: a scoping review.
TL;DR
The authors' 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.
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.
