Systematic Review of Treatment Outcome Measures for Vulvodynia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY: To systematically evaluate the literature regarding vulvodynia treatment outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic literature search on OVID, PubMed, and PsycINFO databases was conducted from inception until May 2016. Studies were included/excluded based on prespecified criteria. Reported outcome measures were organized into 6 core outcome domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT): pain; physical functioning, emotional functioning, participant ratings of global improvement and satisfaction with treatment, symptoms and adverse events, and participant disposition. RESULTS: Of the 206 articles identified for full-text screening, 33 met our criteria. One study adhered to all IMMPACT recommendations. The number of outcomes measured per study ranged from 1 to greater than 20. Patient-reported pain outcomes were found in the majority (27/33; 82%) of studies. Pain severity with intercourse was reported by 24 (73%) of 33 studies-9 different scales were used to measure this outcome. Clinician-reported outcomes were present in 14 (42%) of 33 studies. Methods of measuring vestibular sensitivity by "cotton swab" test were different in 8 of 10 studies. Other domains reported included; physical function (8/33 studies; 24%), sexual function (23/33 studies; 70%), and emotional function (13/33 studies; 39%). Symptoms and adverse events were reported by 15 (45%) of 33 studies. One study formally reported participant disposition using all the information recommended by CONSORT. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of clinical trial results in vulvodynia is not possible because of a lack of standard treatment outcome measures. Vulvodynia researchers should apply the IMMPACT criteria to guide the development of a minimum core set of standard outcome measures that measure holistic health.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it