SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Obstetric outcomes in women with vulvodynia and vaginismus: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Managing Vaginismus with Assisted Dilatation Multidisciplinary Protocol - Retrospective Cohort Study from Indonesia's Largest Dedicated Centre.International journal of women's health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVulvodynia and vaginismus are pain disorders associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The few published studies addressing this topic were limited in terms of the different outcomes studied; hence, the purpose of our study was to perform the first systematic review examining maternal, neonatal and obstetric outcomes in patients with vulvodynia and/or vaginismus (VV).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS until November 2023 for observational studies reporting maternal and/or neonatal outcomes of VV in pregnancy. Data on maternal characteristics and obstetric outcomes were independently extracted from the included studies by two reviewers and then summarized between those with and without VV.
resultsThe search strategy yielded 1118 citations, of which 10 were included. A total of 2209 patients with a diagnosis of VV prior to pregnancy were identified over a 27-year study period. Compared with women without VV, women with VV were more likely to deliver by cesarean sect. (40.3 vs 29.8%, p < 0.001). Cesarean sections were more likely elective (41.0 vs 35.7%) and performed in response to maternal request (26.0 vs 9.5%) for women with VV. Of those who delivered vaginally, instrumental deliveries were more common among women with VV (16.7 vs 6.2%, p < 0.001), with more perineal injuries as well (43.0 vs 32.7% p < 0.001).
conclusionVaginismus/vulvodynia are high-risk conditions during pregnancy with increased rates of cesarean sections performed for elective reasons and upon maternal request. Offering support, education, and treatment for these conditions prior to pregnancy is important to reduce the rate of avoidable cesarean sections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39694904What 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.