Pelvic Floor Muscle Morphometry and Function in Women With Primary and Secondary Provoked Vestibulodynia
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
INTRODUCTION: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) can be categorized as primary PVD affecting women from their first sexual intercourse or secondary PVD, which appears after a period of pain-free intercourse. There is growing evidence that these subgroups may be distinct entities presenting different pathophysiological mechanisms. Although there are documented pelvic floor muscle alterations in provoked vestibulodynia, no study has yet evaluated whether the pelvic floor muscle morphometry or function differed between women with primary and secondary provoked vestibulodynia. AIM: To assess and compare pelvic floor muscle morphometry and function in women with primary and secondary provoked vestibulodynia. METHODS: A total of 212 women with provoked vestibulodynia (primary = 75 and secondary = 137) participated in the study after completing a gynecologic exam to confirm their diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pelvic floor muscle morphometry was evaluated at rest and during maximal contraction using 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound and pelvic floor muscle function (tone, strength, speed of contraction, endurance) was assessed with a dynamometric speculum. RESULTS: Pelvic floor muscle morphometry at rest and during contraction was not statistically different between women with primary and secondary provoked vestibulodynia (P > .327 adjusted for the duration of symptoms; P > .137 unadjusted t-tests). Regarding pelvic floor muscle function assessed with the dynamometric speculum, no differences were found in tone, strength, speed of contraction, endurance between the 2 groups (P > .144 adjusted for duration of symptoms; P > .118 unadjusted t-tests). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Women with primary and secondary PVD do not differ on pelvic floor muscle morphometric or dynamometric characteristics, suggesting that physical therapy modalities should be offered to both subgroups of PVD. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The current study used a large and mixed clinical and community sample providing more representative findings. Moreover, the analyses were adjusted for relevant variables such as duration of symptoms. Although the inclusion of nulliparous women below 45 years of age ensured the homogeneity of the sample, it may limit the external validity. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that primary and secondary subgroups of provoked vestibulodynia cannot be differentiated by morphometric or dynamometric characteristics. Pelvic floor muscles alterations in provoked vestibulodynia are therefore not influenced by the onset of the symptoms. Fontaine F, Dumoulin C, Bergeron S, et al. Pelvic floor muscle morphometry and function in women with primary and secondary provoked vestibulodynia. J Sex Med 2018;15:1149-1157.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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