ArticlePloS one2025
User acceptability profiles of vaginal treatments among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study aimed to identify patient segments of acceptability to vaginal dosage forms in women with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to identify the most important predictors and mediators of each segment using latent segment analysis.
methodsA cross-sectional study included 351 peri- and postmenopausal women from two tertiary care hospitals in the United Arab Emirates. To select the best model, we ran a finite-mixture partial least squares segmentation (FIMIX-PLS). The number of resulting segments was used to run a partial least squares-predicted-oriented segmentation to assign cases to segments and maximize the segment-specific explained variance (R2) across all groups. Multi-group analysis was then performed to examine whether differences between segments were significant. Analyses were performed using the SmartPLS Software version 4.9.
resultsA two-segment model was identified (Entropy > 0.8, Corrected-Akaike's Information Criterion = 1977.11; Bayesian Information Criterion = 1960.11), which indicated adequate and well-separated segments. The first and second segments had 179 and 171 of the cases, respectively, which were considered substantive representations of both segments. The model resulted in a weighted average R2 greater than that of the original sample, indicating better predictive relevance of the model. The multi-group analysis showed that the differences between the two segments were significant. Being on vaginal treatment was observed to be the variable that drove the partition of the segments. Perceived effectiveness for those who were not on treatment (segment 1) and those who were (segment 2) was predicted by affective attitude and intervention coherence, respectively.
conclusionThe acceptability of vaginal treatments differs between experienced and anticipated users. Considering patient-related factors and previous treatment experiences can serve as a benchmark to improve patient acceptability of treatment.
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.