ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Safety and efficacy of non-ablative CO
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fractional CO₂ vaginal laser therapy for genitourinary syndrome of menopause in breast cancer survivors: a scoping review.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Aromatase Inhibitors as Adjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer: Insights into Toxicities and Their Management.Cancers · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Erbium and COLasers in surgery and medicine · 2025Article
- Energies and new technologies in pelvic and pelvic floor dysfunctions.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Review
- Vaginal CO2 Fractional Laser in Women With Vaginal Atrophy: Medical Insights on Short- and Long-term Effects on Genitourinary Symptoms.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer survivors (BCS) suffer severe vulvo-vaginal atrophy (VVA) and some of the most effective therapies are contraindicated. In literature we have no data about the non-ablative CO MATERIALS AND
methodsThe enrolled women underwent 3 sessions of laser therapy (t0, t1, t2) and a one-month follow up examination (t3). At each time point we measured objective signs of VVA via VHI (Vaginal Health Index) and VuHI (Vulvar Health Index) and subjective parameters (Dryness, Burning, Itching, Dysuria) via visual analog scales (VAS). In sexually active women we evaluated the sexual function with FSFI (Female Sexual Function Index), FSDS (Female Sexual Distress Score) scores and MENQOL (menopause quality of life questionnaire).
resultsWe enrolled 26 BCS. The mean VHI, VuVHI, dryness and burning VAS scores improved significantly and this improvement was not influenced by the initial VVA grade. MENQOL sexual domain, Lubrication, Orgasm and Pain domains and FSFI total score improved significantly, while Desire, Arousal and Satisfaction domains of FSFI and FSDS did not. At t0 women using Aromatase Inhibitors suffered more severe vaginal dryness than women using Tamoxifen or no therapy, but the three subgroups improved without differences. No adverse event and minimum discomfort were reported.
conclusionsThe non-ablative CO
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.