ReviewCureus2025
Narrative Review of Clinical Indices and Imaging Tools, With a Proposal for an Integrative Grading Scale for Vulvovaginal Aging.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) encompasses vulvar and vaginal symptoms and signs related to estrogen deficiency that affect quality of life, sexual function, and urogenital health. This narrative review synthesizes clinical signs, patient-reported outcomes, and commonly used clinician-reported indices to appraise vulvovaginal aging, highlighting strengths and gaps of available tools. Core clinician-reported measures include the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and the Vulvar Health Index (VuHI), whereas patient-reported measures span global symptom ratings and validated questionnaires such as the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA). Objective markers (e.g., vaginal pH), cytological indices (vaginal maturation index), and emerging imaging or three-dimensional assessments complement clinical evaluation but remain variably standardized. Across tools, heterogeneity in construct definition, scoring anchors, and responsiveness may hinder comparability and clinical decision-making. We summarize practical, evidence-informed recommendations to improve assessment consistency in routine care and research, and we delineate priorities for future validation, cross-cultural adaptation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) determination.
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.