ArticleBMJ open2025
Vulval lichen sclerosus in UK general practice: a cross-sectional survey of patient experience.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living with lichen sclerosus: A narrative of transformation, advocacy and community building.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- Response to: Comment on "Isolated perineal plaque as the initial presentation of pemphigus vulgaris".JAAD case reports · 2026Article
- Topical Tacrolimus for Lichen Sclerosus: Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore experience and prevalence of vulval lichen sclerosus (VLS) diagnosis in general practice using an anonymous patient survey.
designQuantitative descriptive cross-sectional survey informed by previous qualitative interviews and developed with patient representatives, sent to people recorded in general practice as having a VLS diagnosis.
settingGeneral practices (n=24) in the UK (West Midlands).
participantsn=177 respondents.
resultsOne in five respondents reported that they had been misdiagnosed, and about a third reported that it was a struggle to get treatment. Only one third said they received regular check-ups, recommended in clinical guidelines. One-fifth reported they were not being treated with topical corticosteroids, the main first-line treatment for VLS. Less than one in 10 were members of a support group, and around four in 10 felt they had to hide their condition and did not speak to anyone else about it. Survey respondents prioritised improving education and awareness among healthcare professionals (HCPs).
conclusionGeneral practitioners and other primary care HCPs have a key role in recognising, diagnosing and managing VLS. Improving education and awareness among HCPs was a key priority for this patient group. Patients should be made aware of the need for ongoing treatment and yearly check-ups to prevent or manage disease progression. VLS is a highly stigmatised condition, and appointments with HCPs may be the only opportunity for people to talk about their experience.
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.