Not all lasers are the same: a scoping review evaluating laser therapy for vulvodynia
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Lasers are commonly used for treating various vaginal/vulvar conditions. To date, there is to our knowledge no available literature review on the effects of different types of lasers for the treatment of women with vulvodynia, a condition that causes chronic pain in the vulvar area. OBJECTIVES: We sought to review the literature and summarize the existing published evidence regarding the effects of lasers for the treatment of women with vulvodynia. METHODS: A scoping review with a systematic search was conducted that included studies investigating the use of laser treatment in women with vulvodynia. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tools were used for the quality assessment. The type of laser, effects on pain and function, and participants' perceived improvement as well as adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight studies investigating laser therapy were included in the analysis: 1 randomized controlled trial, 5 before-after studies, 1 nonrandomized intervention study, and 1 case report. Several types of laser therapies were identified, ranging from mild noninvasive photobiomodulation to more invasive ablative procedures. Of the 6 studies that included pain outcomes, 3 studies showed statistically significant improvements from baseline to follow-up, and 3 demonstrated a reduction in pain from subjectively interpreted data. Similarly, each of the 2 studies investigating sexual function also reported an improvement (based only on subjective interpretation). Of the 2 studies with a comparison group, neither study was adequately powered to detect between-group differences. Furthermore, 57%-78% of participants reported improvement, with 1 study showing a greater statistically significant improvement in the low-level laser therapy patient group compared to the sham laser group. Outcomes and adverse events varied depending on the type of laser used. CONCLUSIONS: Although these studies demonstrated some benefits of laser therapy for the treatment of vulvodynia, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the scarcity of the included studies that were robust and sufficiently powered. Future research should focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of different types of lasers in the treatment of vulvodynia.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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 découle