ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2023
Current Perspectives in Vaginal Laxity Measurement: A Scoping Review.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcomes and measures for vaginal relaxation syndrome management: a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- The role of bipolar radiofrequency in the treatment of vaginal laxity: a single-center cohort study in premenopausal women.Lasers in medical science · 2026Observational
- Fractional COLasers in surgery and medicine · 2026Article
- Two-Year Outcomes of Fractional CO₂ Laser for Vaginal Laxity: Effectiveness, Retreatment Need.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Shore-Up, a Novel Technique with Tensor Threads in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Study.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize the available measurement options for vaginal laxity (VL), their indications of use, and whether these measurements can sufficiently provide objective clinical judgment for cases indicated for vaginal rejuvenation with many treatment options nowadays. Systematic searches were conducted on five electronic databases, manually searching articles' bibliographies and predetermined key journals with no date or study design limitations. We included all studies involving VL in their inclusion criteria, treatment indications, and outcome parameters. We used the Arksey and O'Malley frameworks as the guideline in writing this scoping review. Of the 9,464 articles identified, 66 articles and 11,258 subjects were included in the final analysis. The majority of studies were conducted in obstetrics and gynecology (73%), followed by plastic surgery (10%), medical rehabilitation (4.5%), dermatology (4.5%), and others (8%). Most studies originated from the North American region (30%). The following measurement tools were used: (1) interviews, (2) questionnaires, (3) physical/digital examinations, (4) perineometers, and (5) others. Our results suggested that subjective perception of laxity confirmed by directed interview or questionnaire is sufficient to confirm VL. Additional evaluation of pelvic floor muscle through digital examination or perineometer or other preferred tools and evaluation of sexual function through validated questionnaire (Female Sexual Function Index, Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised, etc.) should follow to ensure holistic care to patients. Future research on the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of commonly used measurements and the correlation in between subjective and objective measurements should be initiated before their clinical applications.
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.