MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4377246218 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad060.180

(188) The Female Genitopelvic Pain Subcommittee of the International Consultation of Sexual Medicine: Update on a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, surgical, psychological, and physical therapy treatments for vulvodynia

2023· review· en· W4377246218 sur OpenAlexaff
Sophie Bergeron, J Krapf, Daniela Hartmann, Joana Carvalho, C Garrity, Gemma Villanueva, D Matsoukas, Marieke Dewitte, Susan Kellogg‐Spadt, Andrew T. Goldstein, Filippo Murina, Annamaria Giraldi

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSexual function and dysfunction studies
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVulvodyniaMedicineObservational studyPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)MoodSystematic reviewMEDLINEAdverse effectPelvic painPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatrySurgeryPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Literature on vulvodynia treatment is heterogeneous in terms of intervention type and study quality. A recently published systematic review (SR) of treatments focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs for provoked vestibulodynia (a vulvodynia subtype) concluded that most studies had very low certainty of evidence, which limited the ability to draw conclusions. The authors noted that their strict eligibility criteria resulted in a restricted number of included studies. It suggests a need for broader, more inclusive SRs to be conducted, the results of which could inform much needed intervention recommendations for vulvodynia. Objective The Female Genitopelvic Pain Subcommittee is conducting a SR of treatments for vulvodynia to assess their effectiveness, safety, and acceptability. The results will provide stakeholders with empirically based treatment recommendations for patients with vulvodynia. Methods Selection criteria: Interventions of interest include pharmacological, surgical, psychological, and physical therapy treatments of premenopausal women with clinician-diagnosed vulvodynia (primary, secondary), defined as idiopathic, chronic (≥3 months) vulvar pain. Included studies are RCTs, SRs, and comparative observational studies. The primary outcomes are pain and sexual outcomes, and safety and adverse events, with additional outcomes focusing on mood and quality of life. Selection of studies was done in DistillerSR by two independent reviewers. Conflicts were resolved by discussion or by involving a third reviewer with excluded studies documented. Full-text screening is adhering to this same process. Search methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed by an information specialist and was peer reviewed. Numerous electronic databases were searched. No language limit was used, and a date limit was set (1997 or later). Published filters for controlled trials and other study designs were applied. PubMed/MEDLINE was used to develop the search strategy, which was then translated into other databases. A limited grey literature search was also conducted. Data collection and analysis: Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (ROB) will be done in DistillerSR using pre-piloted data extraction forms. Studies will be extracted by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by involving a third reviewer. We will extract study characteristics and outcome data. For ROB, we will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool. We will narratively synthesize the results by comparisons and outcomes. If appropriate, we will conduct a meta-analysis for studies regarded as suitably homogeneous. Last, the certainty of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results After duplicates were removed, the search yielded 10,171 references for title and abstract screening. Of these, 599 full-text articles were assessed for inclusion. All screening and preliminary data extraction will be completed by October 2022. General characteristics of the included studies including interventions identified will be presented. Conclusions We will report on interim progress of the SR. It will be an opportunity to gather initial input from stakeholders on this evidence-based approach. Discussion of possible multi-organization involvement will also help unify intervention recommendations for those with vulvodynia. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Andrew Goldstein – Daré Bioscience (employee), Incyte (consultant), Gynecologic Cancers Research Foundation (Board of Directors, Research Funding).

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,206
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,585

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,144
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineMême sujetSexual function and dysfunction studiesTravaux en français237 207