Assessment of vulvodynia symptoms in a sample of US women: a prevalence survey with a nested case control study
Open accessAbstract
Objective Vulvodynia is a chronic pain syndrome of unknown origin with scant data on frequency. This study assessed the prevalence of vulvodynia symptoms in a sample of US women and compared health characteristics of symptomatic and asymptomatic women.Study design A phone survey contacted 2127 US households to identify 100 symptomatic women, who were matched on age and time zone to 325 asymptomatic controls. Odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression were used to model associations between pain, medical conditions, and health care utilization variables.Results Current vulvar pain of at least 6 months duration was reported by 3.8% of respondents, with a 9.9% lifetime prevalence. Forty-five percent of women with pain reported an adverse effect on their sexual life and 27% an adverse effect on their lifestyle. Cases more frequently reported repeated urinary tract infections (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 3.51-10.77) and yeast infections (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.47-7.28). Associations existed with chronic fatigue syndrome (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.33-6.19), fibromyalgia (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.06-4.36), depression (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.87-4.80), and irritable bowel syndrome (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.07-3.23).Conclusion Lifetime chronic vulvar pain was less prevalent in this national sample of women than previous data suggest and was correlated with several comorbid chronic medical conditions and substantial reduction in self-reported quality of life.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Differences in time to define chronicity (3 vs 6 months) may not have a large impact on prevalence estimates.
“Both Reed and Arnold’s estimates are similar to our current estimate suggesting that differences in time to define chronicity in diagnostic criteria may not have a large impact on prevalence estimates.4,6”
From Prevalence of symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of vulvodynia: population-based estimates from 2 geographic regions (2014) · cites this paper as [4]
Vulvodynia is highly prevalent, with lifetime estimates of 10-28% among reproductive-aged women in the general population.
“vulvodynia (chronic vulvar pain in the absence of objective abnormalities such as infection or dermatoses), is highly prevalent with lifetime estimates ranging from 10–28% among reproductive-aged women in the general population.”
From Prevalence of symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of vulvodynia: population-based estimates from 2 geographic regions (2014) · cites this paper as [4]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 185
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]Edwards L, Lynch P. 1999 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) Conference on Vulvodynia Terminology. Summer 2000 newsletter Santa Fe, NM: ISSVD; The Terminology and Classification of Vulvodynia: Past, Present, and Future. Summer 2000 newsletter. [Google Scholar]
- Authors
- Arnold, L. D., Bachmann, G. A., Rosen, R., & Rhoads, G. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bachmann, Gloria A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 196
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 128.e1-128.e6
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2746064
- OpenAlex
- W2029142389
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 5.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD040119)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Keywords
- vulvodynia, vulvar pain, prevalence, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, chronic comorbidities, urinary tract infection, yeast infections, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, health care utilization
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Dyspareunia, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, United States, Vulvar Diseases, Prevalence, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review