MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320497588 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdac053

Safety and efficacy of fractional CO2 laser treatment to the vestibule: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, prospective 3-site clinical study in women with vestibular pain

2023· article· en· W4320497588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Goldstein, Irwin Goldstein, Noel N. Kim, Susan Kellogg‐Spadt, Filippo Murina

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVestibuleMedicineVestibular systemRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaProspective cohort studyDouble blindSurgeryAudiologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding fractional CO2 laser as a nonhormonal treatment for vestibular pain. AIM: We sought to perform what is, to our knowledge, the first multisite prospective randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of fractional CO2 laser treatment to the vestibule in women with vestibular pain. METHODS: Subjects (n = 70) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria at each of 3 sites were randomized 2:1 to active or sham (zero energy) fractional CO2 laser treatment using the vestibular probe (SmartXide2 V2LR - MonaLisa Touch, DEKA, Florence, Italy). Subjects in each treatment arm received 3 treatments 4 weeks apart. At the initial follow-up (week 12), subjects were unblinded and those initially assigned to sham started active treatment. OUTCOMES: Outcome measures included changes from baseline in sexual activity diaries and scores for the Vulvoscopic Genital Tissue Appearance Scale (VGTA), vestibular cotton-tipped swab testing, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R), and the O'Leary-Sant voiding and pain indices, the Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI) and Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI). RESULTS: After active treatment, VGTA scores significantly improved in 5 parameters. Pain associated with cotton-tipped swab testing was significantly reduced at weeks 4 through 16 (mean change from baseline -0.64 [95% CI, -0.79 to -0.50] and -1.31 [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.16], respectively). FSFI pain domain scores improved significantly at weeks 12 and 16 (mean change from baseline 0.925 [95% CI, 0.10-1.75] and 1.22 [95% CI, 0.40-2.05], respectively). FSFI total scores increased significantly at weeks 12 and 16 (mean change from baseline 6.24 [95% CI, 2.64-9.85] and 4.96 [95% CI, 1.36-8.57], respectively). FSDS-R scores decreased significantly at weeks 12 and 16 (mean change from baseline -5.84 [95% CI, -8.80 to -2.87] and -9.15 [95% CI, -12.11 to -6.18], respectively). ICSI scores decreased significantly at weeks 12 and 16 (mean change from baseline -0.91 [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.18] and -0.754 [95% CI, -1.49 to -0.02], respectively). ICPI scores decreased significantly at week 16 (mean change from baseline -0.99 [95% CI, -1.63 to -0.34]). In contrast, there were no significant changes in outcomes in the sham arm. No serious adverse events occurred. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Fractional CO2 laser treatment in women with vestibular pain resulted in improvement from baseline in multiple key outcome measures of vestibular health. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths of the study were that it was a multisite prospective randomized double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial that included multiple measures related to vestibular pain and sexual function. Limitations were the nonvalidated primary outcome measure and limited study cohort. CONCLUSION: Fractional CO2 laser therapy is a safe and effective nonhormonal treatment for vestibular pain.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207