Abstract: Background and purpose: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a debilitating condition among women with a major impact on health-related quality of life, work productivity and health care utilisation. The exact prevalence of chronic pelvic pain is not known, but 3.8% is commonly suggested. Musculoskeletal dysfunction is frequently cited as a possible aetiology. Physiotherapy is therefore recommended as one treatment modality. The aim of this systematic review was to source and critically evaluate the evidence for an effect of physiotherapy on pain, physical activity and quality of life in the treatment of female CPP. Methods: Electronic databases, conference proceedings, text books and clinical guidelines were searched for quantitative, observational, and prospective clinical intervention studies of female chronic pelvic pain where physiotherapy was a sole or significant component of the intervention. Trial inclusion, data extraction according to predefined criteria and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent authors. Methodological quality of the included clinical intervention studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration''s tool for assessing risk of bias. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.0 was used for data analysis. Effect estimates (relative risk, mean difference and mean change) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the above outcomes. For significant outcomes the numbers needed to treat were calculated. Results: The search strategy identified 3469 potential articles. Of these, 11 articles, representing 10 studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 6 randomised clinical trials, 1 cohort study and 3 case series. Methodological quality was dependent on study type. Accordingly, level of evidence was judged higher in randomised clinical trials than in the other study types. Physiotherapy treatments varied between studies and were provided in combination with psychotherapeutic modalities and medical management. This did not allow for the ‘stand-alone’ value of physiotherapy to be determined. Heterogeneity across the studies, with respect to participants, interventions, outcome measures and times of follow-up, prevented meta-analysis. Narrative synthesis of the results, based on effect estimates and clinically relevant pain improvement, disclosed some evidence to support an effect of multidisciplinary intervention and Mensendieck somatocognitive therapy on female chronic pelvic pain. Conclusion: Chronic pelvic pain in women is a major health care problem with no specific therapies and poor prognosis. There seems to be some evidence to support the use of a multidisciplinary intervention in the management of female chronic pelvic pain. Somatocognitive therapy is a new approach that appears to be promising and randomised clinical trials are underway in order to establish its evidence base. Implications: Based on the findings of this review, recommendations for physiotherapy in chronic pelvic pain clinical guidelines, textbooks and narrative reviews should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of a sufficient evidence base. Only small and largely non-randomised studies have been undertaken of physiotherapeutic interventions and this greatly limits the available evidence on which to base clinical practice. High quality randomised clinical trials are therefore urgently needed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]