MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909469611 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.12.001

What Do Different Measures of Pain Tell Us? A Comparison in Sexually Active Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia

2019· article· en· W2909469611 on OpenAlexafffund
Frederikke Louise Wammen Rathenborg, Bożena Zdaniuk, Lori A. Brotto

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVulvodyniaPain catastrophizingPhysical therapyRating scaleMedicineHypervigilanceChronic painClinical psychologyPsychologyPelvic painCognitionPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Studies of pain measurement in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) use various methods of capturing pain intensity. The degree to which these different measures of pain correspond with one another is not known. AIM: To compare 3 different measures of pain intensity in sexually active women with PVD participating in a clinical treatment study. METHODS: A total of 64 women (mean age 30.9 years) provided baseline measures of pain intensity using (i) a numeric rating scale that provided a self-report of pain during recalled vaginal penetration; (ii) the pain subscale of the female sexual function index; and (iii) pain elicited with a vulvalgesiometer, an objective method of eliciting pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlations among these 3 measures of pain were moderate in size (range r = 0.39-0.61). Moreover, the numeric rating scale of pain was more likely to be associated with self-reported measures of pain catastrophizing and pain hypervigilance than were scores on the pain subscale of the female sexual function index or scores from the vulvalgesiometer. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Overall, there was a moderate level of correlation between different often-used measures of pain in women with PVD. These findings suggest that, in addition to measuring a common dimension, these different measures tap into different aspects of women's experiences with vulvovaginal pain, and researchers should consider how the chosen measure addresses their primary research question when selecting pain measures in future PVD research. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: A strength of this study was the large sample size (n = 64 sexually active women) who had received confirmed clinical diagnoses of PVD. 1 limitation of the findings is that our self-report outcome measures are based on retrospective ratings of pain over 4 weeks, and it is possible that other variables, such as mood, could have impacted scores on these measures. CONCLUSION: This study showed statistically significant and moderate correlations among 3 different pain measures widely used in PVD research and treatment. In addition, only 1 pain measure showed a significant independent association with emotion function measures. These findings provide a rationale for including multiple measures of pain and emotional function in treatment outcome studies of PVD. Wammen Rathenborg FL, Zdaniuk B, Brotto LA. What Do Different Measures of Pain Tell Us? A Comparison in Sexually Active Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia. J Sex Med 2019;16:278-288.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207