Dyspareunia in Postmenopausal Women: A Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyspareunia, or pain during sexual intercourse, is among the problems most frequently reported by postmenopausal women. Past literature has almost unanimously attributed dyspareunic pain occurring during or after the menopausal transition to declining estrogen levels and vaginal atrophy. OBJECTIVES: To critically review the literature on the prevalence, risk factors, etiology, clinical presentation and treatment of postmenopausal dyspareunia. The present review also examines the traditional and widely held conceptualization of postmenopausal dyspareunia as a direct symptom of hormonal decline. METHODS: Searches of medical and psychological databases were performed for relevant articles and empirical studies. The methodological quality and outcomes of the studies were systematically reviewed. RESULTS: Available empirical evidence suggests that dyspareunia is common in postmenopausal women, and that it is not highly correlated with menopausal status, estrogen levels or vaginal atrophy. Decreasing levels of endogenous estrogen contribute to the development of dyspareunia in postmenopausal women suffering from vaginal atrophy. Hormonal supplementation is beneficial in alleviating their pain. However, a substantial proportion of treated women do not report relief. CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal dyspareunia occurring concurrently with vaginal atrophy is strongly associated with a lack of estrogen in the genital tract. However, a significant percentage of postmenopausal women experience dyspareunic pain that is not caused by hypoestrogenism. It is likely that other types of dyspareunia that occur premenopausally are also occurring in postmenopausal women. Research is needed to adequately address this issue. A change in perspective toward a multiaxial pain-focused approach is proposed for future research concerning dyspareunia in postmenopausal women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".