Current Practices in Brazil on Diagnosis and Management of Women With Vulvodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vulvodynia (VVD) is a frequent and harrowing condition for which diagnosis and management remain insufficient. Our study aimed to describe and compare vulvovaginal signs and symptoms of Brazilian women with VVD and controls and describe previous medical assessment, past treatments, and vulvar pain relief among women with VVD. METHODS: This cross-sectional descriptive study included Brazilian women with (n = 151) and without VVD (n = 106). All women were assessed for vaginal infection, vulvar pain intensity by means of a cotton swab test based on a numerical rate scale, and answered the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaire and a structured instrument about current vulvar symptoms. Previous treatments were assessed in the VVD group, and vulvar pain relief achieved with previous treatments was qualified through a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Volunteers were mainly White, with mean age of 30 years. Vulvovaginal signs and symptoms were significantly more frequent in women with VVD (p < .05), and vulvar pain duration was 5.8 (±4) years. More than 50% consulted with three or more physicians, and 49% remained without a conclusive diagnosis. Previous diagnosis and treatment of vulvovaginal infection were often reported by women with VVD. Most of the tried prescriptions were self-reported as providing only low vulvar pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged duration of vulvar pain, multiple visits to health care professionals, and poor relief of pain are common aspects in the clinical history of women with VVD. In addition to pain, vulvar fissure, edema, erythema, vaginal discharge, and foul odor are common and should be considered to avoid misdiagnosis. Appropriate treatments to VVD are still poorly reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".