| Citation [reference] Follow-up time . | Comparison . | Study design . | Outcomes . | Participants (no studies) . | Effect . | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) . | Down rating (GRADE) . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morin et al, 202144 | Combined physiotherapy – topical lidocaine | RCT | Pain during intercourse (NRS 0–10) | 201 (1) | MD 1,8 (1.2–2.3), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 201 (1) | MD -4,4 (-6.1 to -2.7), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 16% | Not assessed | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 0% | Not assessed | ||||
| Murina et al, 200845 | TENS – simulated treatment | RCT | Pain during intercourse (MDS) | 40 (1) | MD -1.3 (-1.8 to -0.8), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 40 (1) | MD 7,5 (3.3–11.7), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† | ||
| Danielsson et al, 200646 | EMG biofeedback – topical lidocaine | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |
| 12 mo’ follow-up | Pain at pressure or touch (vulvar-algesiometer, mmHg) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Sexual satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Quality of life (NRS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 34 (1) | EMG: some Lidocaine: some | Not assessed | ||||
| Hullender Rubin et al, 201947 | Traditional acupuncture–non-traditional acupuncture (sham procedure) | RCT | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk for bias -1¶ |
| After 6 mo treatment | Pain at pressure or touch (cotton-swab test, VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§Risk of bias -1¶ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 32 C: 36 | Very low | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 0 C: 0 | Very low |
| Citation [reference] Follow-up time . | Comparison . | Study design . | Outcomes . | Participants (no studies) . | Effect . | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) . | Down rating (GRADE) . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morin et al, 202144 | Combined physiotherapy – topical lidocaine | RCT | Pain during intercourse (NRS 0–10) | 201 (1) | MD 1,8 (1.2–2.3), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 201 (1) | MD -4,4 (-6.1 to -2.7), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 16% | Not assessed | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 0% | Not assessed | ||||
| Murina et al, 200845 | TENS – simulated treatment | RCT | Pain during intercourse (MDS) | 40 (1) | MD -1.3 (-1.8 to -0.8), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 40 (1) | MD 7,5 (3.3–11.7), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† | ||
| Danielsson et al, 200646 | EMG biofeedback – topical lidocaine | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |
| 12 mo’ follow-up | Pain at pressure or touch (vulvar-algesiometer, mmHg) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Sexual satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Quality of life (NRS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 34 (1) | EMG: some Lidocaine: some | Not assessed | ||||
| Hullender Rubin et al, 201947 | Traditional acupuncture–non-traditional acupuncture (sham procedure) | RCT | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk for bias -1¶ |
| After 6 mo treatment | Pain at pressure or touch (cotton-swab test, VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§Risk of bias -1¶ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 32 C: 36 | Very low | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 0 C: 0 | Very low |
Calculation of mean difference (MD) was done from study data, since no differences between groups were presented in the study.
Small study population, only 1 study.
Non-blinded study, risk for anticipated effects could have affected the outcome.
Small study population, only 1 study, no statistical significant results.
Large drop-out rate.
C = control; CI = confidence interval; FSFI = Female Sexual Function Index (2–36); I = intervention; ISS = Index of Sexual Satisfaction (0–100); MD = mean difference; MDS = Marinoff Dyspareunia Scale (0–3); NRS = Numeric Rating Scale; NS = non-statistical significant difference; RCT = randomized controlled trial; VAS = Visual analogue scale.
| Citation [reference] Follow-up time . | Comparison . | Study design . | Outcomes . | Participants (no studies) . | Effect . | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) . | Down rating (GRADE) . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morin et al, 202144 | Combined physiotherapy – topical lidocaine | RCT | Pain during intercourse (NRS 0–10) | 201 (1) | MD 1,8 (1.2–2.3), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 201 (1) | MD -4,4 (-6.1 to -2.7), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 16% | Not assessed | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 0% | Not assessed | ||||
| Murina et al, 200845 | TENS – simulated treatment | RCT | Pain during intercourse (MDS) | 40 (1) | MD -1.3 (-1.8 to -0.8), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 40 (1) | MD 7,5 (3.3–11.7), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† | ||
| Danielsson et al, 200646 | EMG biofeedback – topical lidocaine | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |
| 12 mo’ follow-up | Pain at pressure or touch (vulvar-algesiometer, mmHg) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Sexual satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Quality of life (NRS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 34 (1) | EMG: some Lidocaine: some | Not assessed | ||||
| Hullender Rubin et al, 201947 | Traditional acupuncture–non-traditional acupuncture (sham procedure) | RCT | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk for bias -1¶ |
| After 6 mo treatment | Pain at pressure or touch (cotton-swab test, VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§Risk of bias -1¶ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 32 C: 36 | Very low | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 0 C: 0 | Very low |
| Citation [reference] Follow-up time . | Comparison . | Study design . | Outcomes . | Participants (no studies) . | Effect . | Certainty of evidence (GRADE) . | Down rating (GRADE) . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morin et al, 202144 | Combined physiotherapy – topical lidocaine | RCT | Pain during intercourse (NRS 0–10) | 201 (1) | MD 1,8 (1.2–2.3), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 201 (1) | MD -4,4 (-6.1 to -2.7), favor physiotherapy | Low | Precision -1† Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 16% | Not assessed | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. participants) | 201 (1) | Physiotherapy: 0% Lidocaine: 0% | Not assessed | ||||
| Murina et al, 200845 | TENS – simulated treatment | RCT | Pain during intercourse (MDS) | 40 (1) | MD -1.3 (-1.8 to -0.8), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† |
| After 10 wk treatment | Sexual function (FSFI) | 40 (1) | MD 7,5 (3.3–11.7), favor TENS* | Very low | Precision -3† | ||
| Danielsson et al, 200646 | EMG biofeedback – topical lidocaine | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |
| 12 mo’ follow-up | Pain at pressure or touch (vulvar-algesiometer, mmHg) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | ||
| Sexual satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Quality of life (NRS 0–100) | 34 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk of bias -1‡ | |||
| Mild side-effects (no. participants) | 34 (1) | EMG: some Lidocaine: some | Not assessed | ||||
| Hullender Rubin et al, 201947 | Traditional acupuncture–non-traditional acupuncture (sham procedure) | RCT | Pain during intercourse (VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§ Risk for bias -1¶ |
| After 6 mo treatment | Pain at pressure or touch (cotton-swab test, VAS 0–100) | 14 (1) | NS | Very low | Precision -3§Risk of bias -1¶ | ||
| Mild side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 32 C: 36 | Very low | ||||
| Serious side-effects (no. events) | 14 (1) | I: 0 C: 0 | Very low |
Calculation of mean difference (MD) was done from study data, since no differences between groups were presented in the study.
Small study population, only 1 study.
Non-blinded study, risk for anticipated effects could have affected the outcome.
Small study population, only 1 study, no statistical significant results.
Large drop-out rate.
C = control; CI = confidence interval; FSFI = Female Sexual Function Index (2–36); I = intervention; ISS = Index of Sexual Satisfaction (0–100); MD = mean difference; MDS = Marinoff Dyspareunia Scale (0–3); NRS = Numeric Rating Scale; NS = non-statistical significant difference; RCT = randomized controlled trial; VAS = Visual analogue scale.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
