Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : An Evidence Map.

Kristine Ensrud, Susan Diem, Nancy Greer, Timothy J Wilt, Mary L Forte, Adrienne Landsteiner, Catherine Sowerby, Mary Butler, Maylen Anthony, Kristen E Ullman, Nicholas Zerzan, Elisheva R Danan

Journal: Annals of internal medicine 2024;177(10):1389-1399

PMID: 39250808

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Women seeking nonhormonal interventions for vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) may seek out complementary and alternative medicine or therapies (CAMs).

PURPOSE

To summarize published evidence of CAMs for GSM.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through 11 December 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 8 weeks or more in duration that evaluated the effectiveness or harms of CAMs for postmenopausal women with GSM and reported 1 or more outcomes of interest, with sample sizes of 20 or more participants randomly assigned per group.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second.

DATA SYNTHESIS

An evidence map approach was used to organize and describe trials. Studies were organized by type of intervention, with narrative summaries for population, study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Fifty-seven trials were identified that investigated 39 unique interventions. Studies were typically small ( < 200), and most were done in Iran ( = 24) or other parts of Asia ( = 9). Few trials evaluated similar combinations of populations, interventions, comparators, or outcomes. Most studies ( = 44) examined natural products (that is, herbal or botanical supplements and vitamins), whereas fewer reported on mind and body practices ( = 6) or educational programs ( = 7). Most studies reported 1 or 2 GSM symptoms, mainly sexual ( = 44) or vulvovaginal ( = 30). Tools used to measure outcomes varied widely. Most trials reported on adverse events ( = 33).

LIMITATIONS

Only English-language studies were used. Effect estimates, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were not assessed.

CONCLUSION

There is a large and heterogeneous literature of CAM interventions for GSM. Trials were small, and few were done in North America. Standardized population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes reporting in future RCTs are needed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).

Address: Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (K.E.U., C.S., N.Z., M.A., A.L., N.G.).; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, and Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (S.D., E.R.D.).; Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (M.L.F., M.B.).; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, and Department of Medicine and Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (K.E.).; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, and Department of Medicine and Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (T.J.W.).
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.