ArticleJournal of pain research2017
Vulvodynia is not created equally: empirical classification of women with vulvodynia.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Topical analgesics for neuropathic pain: an evidence-informed guide for the practicing clinician.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Chronic stress increases the susceptibility to chronic vulvar pain following acute vulvar inflammation in a preclinical model of vulvodynia.Molecular brain · 2026Article
- Vestibulodynia presentation is differentiated by the presence of additional chronic primary pain conditions.The journal of pain · 2025Article
- Comorbid bladder pain syndrome and vulvodynia - a cross-sectional analysis of the UNICORN-4 study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Vulvodynia - A contemporary understanding and practical approach in primary care settings.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVulvodynia classification is based on the sensory dimensions of pain and does not include psychological factors associated with the pain experience and treatment outcomes. Previous work has shown that individuals with chronic pain can be classified into subgroups based on pain sensitivity, psychological distress, mood, and symptom severity.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify distinct subgroups of women with vulvodynia enrolled in the National Vulvodynia Registry. We hypothesized that women with vulvodynia can be clustered into subgroups based on distress and pain sensitivity.
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsWe conducted an exploratory hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis using Ward's cluster method and squared Euclidean distances to identify unique subgroups based on baseline psychological distress and pain sensitivity. The variables included the catastrophizing subscale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory, the State Trait Anxiety Index-Trait scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire-Affective subscale, and vulvar and pelvic muscle pressure pain sensitivity. SUBJECTS: Eight sites enrolled women who presented with vaginal or vulval pain of at least 3-month duration.
resultsTwo distinct subgroups, high pain sensitivity with high distress (n=27) and low pain sensitivity with low distress (n=100), emerged from the cluster analysis. Validation indicated that subgroups differed in terms of clinical pain intensity, sensory aspects of pain, and intercourse pain.
conclusionEmpirical classification indicates that unique subgroups exist in women with vulvodynia. Providers should be aware of the heterogeneity of this condition with respect to pain-related distress and pain sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.