Oral Desipramine and Topical Lidocaine for Vulvodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of common treatments for vulvodynia: topical lidocaine monotherapy, oral desipramine monotherapy, and lidocaine-desipramine combined therapy. METHODS: A 12-week randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 133 vulvodynia-afflicted women assigned to four treatment arms: placebo tablets-placebo cream, desipramine tablets-placebo cream, placebo tablets-lidocaine cream, and desipramine tablets-lidocaine cream. The tampon test was selected as primary end point using a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Twelve secondary end points were also examined. At completion of the 12-week randomized phase, women were examined "open label" through 52 weeks postrandomization. RESULTS: All treatment arms reported substantial tampon-test pain reduction: 33% reduction placebo cream-placebo tablet, 20% reduction lidocaine cream-placebo tablet, 24% reduction placebo cream-desipramine tablet, and 36% reduction lidocaine cream-desipramine tablet. Compared with placebo, we found no significant difference in tampon-test pain reduction with desipramine (t=0.90; P=.37) or lidocaine (t=1.27; P=.21). Of the remaining 12 outcome measures, only the Index of Sexual Satisfaction, improved with desipramine compared with placebo (t=-2.81; P=.006). During the open-label phase, women undergoing vestibulectomy surgery reported significantly improved pain as measured by cotton swab test and the McGill Pain Scale compared with nonsurgical alternatives. CONCLUSION: Oral desipramine and topical lidocaine, as monotherapy or in combination, failed to reduce vulvodynia pain more than placebo. Placebo or placebo-independent effects are behind the substantial pain improvement seen in all treatment allocations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00276068. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".