Patterns in Vulvodynia Treatments and 6-Month Outcomes for Women Enrolled in the National Vulvodynia Registry—An Exploratory Prospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Vulvodynia is a poorly characterized condition with multiple treatment options that have been described as largely ineffective in research settings. AIM: To describe treatment patterns in women enrolled in the National Vulvodynia Registry and determine if there is an association between selected treatments and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, sexual function, and psychological distress after 6 months of treatment. METHODS: Participants completed questionnaires on general medical history and patient-reported outcomes using the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Female Sexual Function Index, the Short Form-12 quality-of-life questionnaire, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The evaluation also included pain sensitivity assessment of the vaginal mucosa using a cotton-tipped applicator and the vaginal muscles using a single-digit. In this prospective cohort study, all measurements were collected at baseline and again at 6 months after treatment. OUTCOMES: Type of treatment, number of treatments, self-reported pain intensity, dyspareunia, and pain-related psychological distress measures are reported at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Of 344 women enrolled, 282 received treatment; 78 different treatments were identified and categorized by type (eg, topical, oral, physical therapy) and number. The most commonly used treatments were topical (85%, n = 241), physical therapy (52%, n = 147), and oral medications (45%, n = 128). Notably, 73% of participants received ≥2 treatments. There was no association between type or number of treatments and patient characteristics. At 6 months, women reported improvements in general pain (P = .001), pain during intercourse (P = .001), catastrophizing (P = .000), and anxiety (P = .000). The Short Form-12 quality-of-life questionnaire showed improvements in physical limitations (P = .024), emotional limitations (P = .003), well-being (P = .025), and social function (P = .010). However, all domains of the Female Sexual Function Index indicated worsening in sexual function (P = .000) except for pain. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Multi-modal treatments were most commonly used in clinical practice and improvements in patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life, distress, and pain were noted; however, participants who returned at 6 months continued to report poor sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Strengths include a prospective and long-term study design that evaluated women in clinical settings. Limitations include a high rate of loss to follow-up for certain measures and inability to evaluate efficacy of individual treatments. In a setting where women were receiving highly specialized care, we found wide variation in the type and number of treatments used to treat vulvodynia. Despite this heterogeneity in treatment selection, women reported significant improvements in all study measures except sexual function. Lamvu G, Alappattu M, Witzeman K, et al. Patterns in Vulvodynia Treatments and 6-Month Outcomes for Women Enrolled in the National Vulvodynia Registry-An Exploratory Prospective Study. J Sex Med 2018;15:705-715.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».