(032) Development of a Core Outcome Set for Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The literature on vulvodynia treatment is heterogeneous in terms of intervention type, study quality, and outcome measures. A systematic review (SR) of vulvodynia treatments was recently published focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs for provoked vestibulodynia (PVD, a vulvodynia subtype). The authors of the SR concluded that most studies had very low certainty of evidence, which limited the ability to draw conclusions about intervention efficacy. In addition, the authors noted a large degree of heterogeneity in outcome measures, which limited the ability to conduct a meta-analysis, and they recommended that future studies incorporate a core outcome set (COS, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes that should be assessed and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or healthcare) so that results from future clinical trials of PVD can be combined and evaluated. Objective To establish a COS for PVD. Methods The Project Management Team of the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) consists of vulvodynia researchers/clinicians, a patient partner, and health technology methodologists. Since March 2022, the team has conducted a literature review and extracted all outcomes from the PVD treatment literature (as of 1990 for published studies, and no date limit for the clinical trials database). Sixty-six outcomes (e.g., pain during intercourse, sexual function) have been identified. To conduct a two round Delphi survey with multiple stakeholders, registration for participation in the study (ongoing) has been open to a variety of stakeholders: people with current or past lived experience of PVD, relatives of those with lived experience of PVD, healthcare practitioners, researchers, and others (e.g., leaders of patient or funding organizations). Participants who register will provide background information to ensure representativeness of stakeholder identification and sociodemographic status (e.g., country of residence, gender), after which they will be asked to participate in the first survey. The first survey asks participants to rate each of the outcomes on a 9-point scale (from outcome is not important to outcome is critical to include and should always be measured in treatment studies) and to list any outcomes that should be included but were missed. In the second survey, the outcomes with the highest ranks from the first survey and all new outcomes will be presented to the participants, and they will be asked to rate them. Then, a virtual consensus meeting will be held with some members from all stakeholder groups to discuss the highest ranked outcomes and to decide which ones to include in the core outcome set. Results We will report on interim progress of the COS for PVD. Conclusions The results of this study will contribute critical information to standardize outcome reporting across PVD treatment studies so that stakeholders can directly compare the effectiveness of different interventions, identify clinically relevant outcomes, and reduce the risk of reporting bias. In addition, they will allow for the generation of consistent data for meta-analyses. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".