Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to treat vestibulodynia: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the treatment of vestibulodynia. DESIGN: Double-arm randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: An outpatient department for vulval disease. POPULATION: Forty women with vestibulodynia, a vestibular discomfort mostly reported as a burning pain, occurring in the absence of relevant visible findings or a specific, clinically identifiable, neurological disorder. METHODS: Twice a week active TENS or sham treatment were delivered through a vaginal probe via a calibrated dual channel YSY-EST device. Women of both groups underwent 20 treatment sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analogue scale (VAS), the short form of the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Marinoff Scale for dyspareunia and the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaire (FSFI) were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment and at follow up 3 months after the end of treatment. RESULTS: The VAS and SF-MPQ scores (6.2 +/- 1.9 and 19.5 +/- 11.9 before treatment, respectively) improved significantly in the active TENS group (2.1 +/- 2.7, P= 0.004 and 8.5 +/- 10.7, P= 0.001, respectively), but not in the placebo group. The Marinoff dyspareunia scale and the FSFI also showed a significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: TENS is a simple, effective and safe short-term (3 months) treatment for the management of vestibulodynia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".