SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Beyond the placebo effect: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis of treatment strategies for vulvodynia.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2026. 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.
- Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives in vulvodynia: From current evidence to future investigations.Cell reports. Medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo comprehensively evaluate the comparative and absolute effectiveness of available treatments for vulvodynia on pain and sexual function outcomes through network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsSystematic searches extracted data from randomized controlled trials (blinded or unblinded) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in women with vulvodynia, from inception through September 2025. Of 40 studies assessed for eligibility, 34 studies involving 1,893 participants were included in the final analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2 tool.Confidence in network meta-analysis results was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework.
resultsPain and sexual function outcomes were rescaled to percentage of maximum possible score (POMP, 0–100 scale) to enable pooling across heterogeneous measurement instruments. Both relative treatment effects (comparing interventions to placebo/no treatment) and absolute effects (pre-post changes) were evaluated using Bayesian NMA. Ten treatment categories were analysed: acupuncture, botulinum toxin, topical anaesthetics, topical non-anaesthetics, multimodal/physical therapy, psychological approaches, surgery, tissue-based therapies (photobiomodulation, low-level laser, vaginal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, shockwave therapy), placebo, and no treatment. For pain immediately post-therapy (33 studies, 1,873 women), tissue-based therapies demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo in both NMA (POMP difference: -16.1, 95% CI: -24.1, -7.9, mixed evidence, moderate confidence), and pairwise meta-analyses (POMP difference: -20.2, 95% CI: -28.6, -11.7, I2 = 77%) and ranking highest in surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis (85.2%). Pharmacological interventions showed no superiority over placebo. Compared to no treatment, multimodal-physical therapy (POMP: -25.3, 95% CI: -40.8, -9.7, mixed evidence, low confidence), acupuncture (POMP: -25.6, 95% CI: -43.4, -8.1, mixed evidence, moderate confidence), and psychological approaches (POMP -27.4, 95% CI: -44.6, -10.3, indirect evidence, low confidence) all demonstrated moderate-to-high pain reduction. At 3–6 months follow-up (16 studies, 1,106 women), tissue-based treatments remained the only therapy significantly superior to placebo (POMP: -24.5, 95% CI: -42.2, -6.7, mixed evidence, moderate confidence; SUCRA = 77.9%). In absolute effects analysis, placebo produced significant pain reduction (Absolute effect: -13.7, 95% CI: -18.3, -9.3 immediately; -11.7, 95% CI: -17.7, -6.0 at 3–6 months), with confidence intervals overlapping all treatments except tissue-based therapies (Absolute effect: -28, 95% CI: -33.4, -21.7 immediately; -31.6, 95% CI: -43.9, -19.1 at follow-up). Placebo had no effect on sexual function improvement (14 studies, 942 women), (Absolute effect: 2.5, 95% CI: -8., 12.9). At 3–6 months of follow-up (8 studies, 429 women), psychological-based treatments, when added to multimodal treatment (POMP = 9.0, 95% CI = 1.8, 16.7, I2 = 41.6%), improved modestly sexual functioning.
conclusionsIn NMA, tissue-based therapies were the most effective treatment for vulvodynia-associated pain, achieving reductions that clearly exceeded placebo effects with moderate evidence quality. Commonly prescribed pharmacological interventions lack robust evidence of superiority over placebo. Multimodal approaches combined with psychological interventions show promise, particularly for sexual function recovery.
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.