Early experience with topical meloxicam and lidocaine combination for the treatment of vulvodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We report our early clinical observations on the use of topical meloxicam and lidocaine gel for patients with vulvodynia. METHODS: This is an early experience in participants with a history of vulvodynia evaluated and treated at the Queen's University Pelvic and Bladder Pain Clinic. Combination meloxicam 0.3% and lidocaine 5% were provided to the participants and they were instructed to apply 5 cc to the vulvar area twice daily. Standardized assessment was conducted for each participant before the start of the topical therapy and again at one week, and included Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI), Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI), and pain scoring (Likert) for vulvar pain, in addition to a subjective global assessment after a week of treatment. RESULTS: Of the eight participants, six had a subjective improvement in their symptoms with the use of the combination gel. They reported between one- and four-point reductions on the Likert pain scale and mild to moderate improvement of symptoms. Common side effects reported were burning and stinging. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this early experience are promising for a potentially effective topical treatment for vulvodynia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".