Physical Modalities for the Treatment of Localized Provoked Vulvodynia: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2010 to 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Localized provoked vulvodynia (LPV) is a prevalent sexual health condition with significant negative impacts on quality of life. There is a lack of consensus regarding effective management. Methods: We used Arksey and O'Malley's five-step method to identify, collate, and evaluate literature published between 2010 and 2023. The scoping review investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in the management of LPV. The aim of this paper is to map the literature on the efficacy or effectiveness of physical interventions. Results: The review produced 19 primary studies of physical interventions for LPV. These include acupuncture, laser therapy, physiotherapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-intensity shockwave therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation, and vestibulectomy. Conclusion: Published studies that investigated a range of physical treatments for LPV showed some positive effects, except for transcranial direct-current stimulation. The remaining modalities demonstrated improved sexual pain and treatment satisfaction, when measured. Findings were mixed for non-sexual pain. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding other outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to conduct larger, high-quality studies that sample more diverse patient populations and use patient-oriented outcomes to assess effectiveness of physical modalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".