MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287980351 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.05.035

Self-Report Assessment of Sexual Function After LEEP in Women who Report Negative Outcomes

2022· article· en· W4287980351 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Giovannetti, Diane Tomalty, Sara Greco, Michael L. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmSexual functionMedicineReproductive healthFemale sexual dysfunctionClinical psychologyFamily medicineHealth careSexual dysfunctionPsychologyGynecologyPsychiatryPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction The Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) is a fast and highly effective method of removing cervical dysplasia. Interestingly, it has been reported that a subpopulation of women have negative symptoms post-LEEP, including significant decreases in arousal, lubrication, and orgasm satisfaction. There is discord surrounding the role of the cervix in sexual responses that has likely resulted in a lack of physician-patient communication regarding possible risks of female sexual dysfunction (FSD) after cervical procedures, such as the LEEP. Barriers to discussion may include a lack of standardized sexual health care pre- and post-operatively, lack of FSD resources, and inconsistent practices regarding patient-centered care and open conversations. Our study proposes that the symptom profile of women who have post-LEEP FSD is not only unique, but that it may be revealed by pre-and post-operative assessment using existing validated surveys as well as through open conversations. Objective This study defines a symptom profile of patients who report negative post-LEEP outcomes related to FSD. It also determines whether a combination of validated self-report surveys and open conversations could elucidate FSD concerns pre- and post-operatively. Methods First, a self-report survey was developed by researchers that included questions regarding locations of sexual responses and barriers to sexual health conversations; the full FSFI was included as a discrete component of the survey. Sixty-four participants were recruited from online patient groups, completed the online surveys, and were subsequently interviewed by the research team. The semi-structured interview protocol that was developed aimed to construct a narrative from women who report FSD following LEEP to develop an understanding of the language they use to describe their distress and dysfunction. The responses elucidated from these conversations were transcribed, and qualitative analysis was performed using NVivo12. Results Our study validated the results from previous studies with regards to the existence of a subpopulation of women who report FSD following LEEP using self-report surveys. However, this study is the first to report a unique symptom profile of post-LEEP FSD patients that was not detected using existing validated tools such as the FSFI. Participants consistently described symptoms of altered or loss of cervical sensation during sex (numbness), pain with vaginal penetration, decreased lubrication, depression, loss of interest, arousal, desire, self-confidence, as well as issues with partners. Participants also described inadequate or absent pre-operative care regarding the disclosure of possible risks as well as screening for FSD. Post-operative care was reported to be minimal, with most patients feeling uncomfortable discussing sexual health concerns with their care providers. Patients also described a lack of resources available to them after LEEP, though they wished their physicians had provided them with this information. Conclusions This study identifies a unique symptom profile of women who reported negative post-surgical outcomes which is distinct from symptoms previously reported by validated FSD screeners, an area which has not been researched sufficiently within the focus of LEEP. This study may inform future investigations targeting the development and administration of FSD assessment tools to standardize LEEP counselling and thereby improve patient outcomes. Disclosure No

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207