Cognitive-behavioral couple therapy versus lidocaine for provoked vestibulodynia: A randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial compared a novel cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (CBCT) and topical lidocaine for provoked vestibulodynia. METHOD: Participants were 108 women (M age = 27.06) and their partners randomized to one of two treatments and assessed at pre- and post-treatment and 6-month follow-up via questionnaires pertaining to the primary outcomes of women's pain (numerical rating scales of pain intensity and unpleasantness), and secondary outcomes of pain anxiety (Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale), both partners' sexual function (Female Sexual Function Index; International Index of Erectile Function), sexual distress (Female Sexual Distress Scale Revised), pain-related psychological distress (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), treatment satisfaction, and global ratings of improvements in pain and sexuality. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat multilevel analyses showed that for women, CBCT yielded significantly more improvements than lidocaine in pain unpleasantness at 6-month follow-up, pain anxiety and pain catastrophizing at post-treatment and 6-month follow-up, and sexual distress at post-treatment, and resulted in better treatment satisfaction and global sexuality improvements at both time points. Partners significantly improved in their sexual function, sexual distress, and pain catastrophizing from pre- to post-treatment and pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up, with no significant group differences. Partners in the CBCT condition reported significantly greater treatment satisfaction at both time points, and greater sexuality improvements at post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT yielded better outcomes on more dimensions of provoked vestibulodynia than lidocaine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".