MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387357136 · doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qead039

Not all lasers are the same: a scoping review evaluating laser therapy for vulvodynia

2023· review· en· W4387357136 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvodyniaMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectClinical trialSexual functionPelvic painSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Lasers are commonly used for treating various vaginal/vulvar conditions. To date, there is to our knowledge no available literature review on the effects of different types of lasers for the treatment of women with vulvodynia, a condition that causes chronic pain in the vulvar area. OBJECTIVES: We sought to review the literature and summarize the existing published evidence regarding the effects of lasers for the treatment of women with vulvodynia. METHODS: A scoping review with a systematic search was conducted that included studies investigating the use of laser treatment in women with vulvodynia. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tools were used for the quality assessment. The type of laser, effects on pain and function, and participants' perceived improvement as well as adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight studies investigating laser therapy were included in the analysis: 1 randomized controlled trial, 5 before-after studies, 1 nonrandomized intervention study, and 1 case report. Several types of laser therapies were identified, ranging from mild noninvasive photobiomodulation to more invasive ablative procedures. Of the 6 studies that included pain outcomes, 3 studies showed statistically significant improvements from baseline to follow-up, and 3 demonstrated a reduction in pain from subjectively interpreted data. Similarly, each of the 2 studies investigating sexual function also reported an improvement (based only on subjective interpretation). Of the 2 studies with a comparison group, neither study was adequately powered to detect between-group differences. Furthermore, 57%-78% of participants reported improvement, with 1 study showing a greater statistically significant improvement in the low-level laser therapy patient group compared to the sham laser group. Outcomes and adverse events varied depending on the type of laser used. CONCLUSIONS: Although these studies demonstrated some benefits of laser therapy for the treatment of vulvodynia, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the scarcity of the included studies that were robust and sufficiently powered. Future research should focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of different types of lasers in the treatment of vulvodynia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.562
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.016 · 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