Does physiotherapy treatment improve the self-reported pain levels and quality of life of women with vulvodynia? A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated whether a 3-month period of physiotherapy treatment improved the pain levels and quality of life of women with vulvodynia. A quasi-experimental method was used, comprising a within-subjects, pre-test/post-test design in which subjects acted as their own controls. A convenience sample of 14 subjects was recruited from referrals to women's health physiotherapy between May and August 2004. The McGill Pain Questionnaire and Short Form 36 (version 2) were used to assess changes in self-reported pain levels and quality of life, respectively. Subjects completed questionnaires on recruitment to the study, 3 months later (immediately prior to commencing physiotherapy treatment), and after 3 months of treatment. The study investigated whether changes in pain levels and quality of life observed during the 3-month intervention phase differed from those observed during the 3-month control phase. The pain levels of study subjects reduced during the treatment period relative to the control period, and improvements were also observed in some aspects of quality of life. These results indicate that physiotherapy may offer some benefit in the treatment of vulvodynia. However, none of the findings reached statistical significance due to the small sample size. This study supports the view that physiotherapy provides pain relief for women with vulvodynia. Larger, randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the effectiveness of the treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".