Recommendations for the Study of Vulvar Pain in Women, Part 1: Review of Assessment Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The etiology and consequences of chronic vulvar pain are multidimensional, resulting in highly variable clinical presentations and no established treatment algorithm. Inconsistent use of measurement tools across studies is a significant barrier to drawing conclusions regarding etiology and treatment. In a companion paper, we review additional methodological challenges to the study of chronic vulvar pain and potential solutions. AIM: To review and recommend assessment and measurement tools for vulvar pain and associated key outcomes. METHODS: The authors reviewed the scientific evidence related to measurement of vulvar pain and made decisions regarding recommendations via discussion and consensus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We assessed measurement tools for vulvar pain and related outcomes and considered advantages and disadvantages of their use. RESULTS: Empirically validated measurement tools are available and should be used uniformly across studies to support comparisons and pooling of results. There is, at times, a trade-off between advantages and disadvantages when selecting a particular tool, and researchers should be guided by their specific research aims, feasibility, and potential to gain further knowledge in the field. Researchers should incorporate a biopsychosocial assessment of vulvar pain and its consequences. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review provides a comprehensive list of measurement tool recommendations for use in clinical research, and in some cases, clinical practice. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This expert review can guide study design and decision-making for those researching vulvar pain and its consequences. The review content and recommendations are based on expert knowledge of the literature rather than a formal systematic review. CONCLUSION: A thorough consideration of vulvar pain assessment tools is essential for continued progress toward identifying factors involved in the development and maintenance of vulvar pain and developing empirically supported treatments. Rosen NO, Bergeron S, Pukall CF. Recommendations for the Study of Vulvar Pain in Women, Part 1: Review of Assessment Tools. J Sex Med 2020; 17:180-194.
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 | 0.074 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".