Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of treatment modalities for vestibulodynia in women
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
Objective: To quantify the effects of available treatments of vestibulodynia.Methods: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in six search engines until December 2018, comparing any intervention vs. placebo or sham in women with vestibulodynia. Primary outcome was dyspareunia assessed with visual analogue (VAS) or numeric rating (NRS) scales. Secondary outcomes were daily vestibular symptoms (DVS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS). Effects were described as mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Traditional and frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using random effect models.Results: Four RCTs (n = 275) were included evaluating vaginal cream of conjugated oestrogens, oral desipramine with or without topical lidocaine, topical lidocaine, laser therapy and transcranial direct current. In traditional MA, interventions did not reduce dyspareunia (MD = 0.08; 95%CI = −0.49 to 0.64), DVS (MD = −0.04; 95%CI = −0.31 to 0.24; 4 interventions), or MPQ (MD = −0.17; 95%CI = −2.16 to 1.81; 4 interventions). ISS was significantly improved (MD = −5.14; 95%CI = −9.52 to −0.75). In NMA, oral desipramine with or without lidocaine significantly improved ISS vs. other treatments.Conclusions: Several existing interventions were not associated with improvements in vestibulodynia. There only was improvement of sexual function with oral desipramine with or without lidocaine.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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