ArticleBMC women's health2025
Diagnostic gaps in vulvar diseases from referral to final diagnosis in a specialized center: analysis of pathways and recommendations for enhancing future diagnostic accuracy.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- Informational needs in vulvar cancer and precursor conditions: a social listening study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVulvar diseases have a serious impact on women's quality of life and can be challenging to diagnose. Correct diagnosis is, however, mandatory for appropriate treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic quality regarding the classification of disease symptoms, the suspected diagnosis of referring doctors, the agreement of suspected diagnosis with final diagnosis and the latencies from onset of symptoms to final diagnosis, thereby identifying potential resources for improvement.
methodsRetrospective data from the electronic medical charts of 325 patients attending the interdisciplinary vulva clinic at the University Hospital Zurich between January 2016 and December 2020 were analyzed. The consistency between suspected diagnosis at referral and the definitive diagnosis was investigated against the background of vulvar pathology, disease symptoms, specialization of the referring physicians involved, diagnostic steps and time until diagnosis.
resultsReferral diagnoses were inconsistent with final diagnoses in 96 (43.8%) cases. The time between symptom onset and final diagnosis ranged from 15.9 ± 10.6 to 71.1 ± 92.9 months, depending on the vulvar pathology. In cases of dysplasia, eczema, lichen sclerosus and lichen planus, diagnosis at referral and final diagnosis matched best, while other inflammatory diseases, vulvodynia, and chronic infectious diseases (bacterial/fungal/viral) represented the greatest diagnostic challenges. Suspected diagnosis from gynecologists matched in 36.1% of cases, compared to 83.3% for dermatologists. No standardized pattern for the use of any specific diagnostic technique by referring physicians could be identified.
conclusionThere is significant diagnostic latency and variability in accuracy across vulvar disorders and referring specialists. A systematic diagnostic approach, including symptom evaluation, clinical inspection and appropriate diagnostic testing, is lacking. Standardized methods for symptom documentation, clinical assessment, diagnostic testing, and collaboration with specialized vulvar centers are essential to streamline the precision and efficiency of diagnosis as a basis for optimized treatment strategies.
trial registrationBASEC 2019 - 00976.
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.