SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Patient-reported outcomes and measures for vaginal relaxation syndrome management: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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.
- The role of bipolar radiofrequency in the treatment of vaginal laxity: a single-center cohort study in premenopausal women.Lasers in medical science · 2026Observational
- Fractional COLasers in surgery and medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Energy-Based Device Therapy in Women Diagnosed with Vaginal Relaxation Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe heterogeneity of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in published clinical studies on vaginal relaxation syndrome (VRS) hinders cross-study comparisons and integration of evidence-based findings, impeding the development of robust clinical evidence.
objectiveTo comprehensively investigate the current use of PROs and PROMs in VRS research, compile a comprehensive catalog, and provide guidance for selecting outcome measures and tools VRS patients.
methodsThis study systematically searched clinical studies on VRS treatment published up to December 2024 in PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, focusing primarily on pelvic floor muscle training, physical energy therapies, and surgical interventions. PROs and PROMs were extracted, organized into a structured catalog, and categorized by thematic domains. The COSMIN checklist was applied to assess the measurement properties of commonly used PROMs.
resultsA total of 69 studies were included, comprising 14 randomized controlled trials (1193 patients) and 55 observational studies (3327 patients), totaling 4520 participants. These studies reported 68 PROs and 57 PROMs. The most commonly used PROMs were the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI, 47.83%), Vaginal Laxity Questionnaire (VLQ), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ). Notably, 42 PROMs (73.68%) appeared only once.
conclusionsPROs for surgical and non-surgical VRS treatments are similar, but non-surgical interventions include additional outcomes, such as overall efficacy and patient's vaginal tightness satisfaction. The high proportion of unvalidated PROMs (81.09%) underscores the need for standardized, disease-specific measures. Future Delphi surveys and expert consensus are anticipated to facilitate the development of a comprehensive core outcome set (COS) and core outcome measurement set (COMS) for VRS.
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.