Cited by 322Sexual function and dysfunction studiesGenital Health and DiseasePelvic floor disorders treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 13 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Prevalence of symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of vulvodynia: population-based estimates from 2 geographic regions

Open access

Abstract

Objective We used validated sensitive and specific questions associated with clinically confirmed diagnoses of unexplained vulvar pain (vulvodynia) to compare the cumulative incidence of vulvar pain and prevalence of care-seeking behavior in Boston metropolitan area (BMA) and in Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area (MSP) from 2001 through 2005 using census-based data, and 2010 through 2012, using outpatient community-clinic data, respectively.Study design We received self-administered questionnaires from 5440 women in BMA and 13,681 in MSP, 18-40 years of age, describing their history of vulvar burning or pain on contact that persisted >3 months that limited/prevented intercourse.Results By age 40 years, 7-8% in BMA and MSP reported vulvar pain consistent with vulvodynia. Women of Hispanic origin compared to whites were 1.4 times more likely to develop vulvar pain symptoms (95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8). Many women in MSP (48%) and BMA (30%) never sought treatment, and >50% who sought care with known health care access received no diagnosis.Conclusion Using identical screening methods, we report high prevalence of vulvar pain in 2 geographic regions, and that access to health care does not increase the likelihood of seeking care for chronic vulvar pain.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.033

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 13 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 19 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 11
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7
17 of 17
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The BMA and MSP samples are representative of women aged 18–40 in their respective geographic regions.

    “we were able to assess the magnitude of this problem in women from community-based samples rather than clinical specialty practices.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Women accurately reported their age at first onset of vulvar pain.

    “Self-reported age at first onset of vulvar pain was obtained and used to estimate age-specific cumulative incidence”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Women accurately reported their care-seeking behavior and whether they received a diagnosis.

    “We estimated what proportion of women sought treatment, how many different clinicians were seen to address their vulvar pain, and whether they were able to receive a diagnosis (either correct or incorrect based on the respondent’s self-report).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Non-respondents are similar to respondents on characteristics other than age that are relevant to vulvar pain.

    “In both the BMA and the MSP sample, respondents and non-respondents were comparable by age”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting specificity for the screening questions

    Minor

    The methods report 94% specificity for the screening questions, while the discussion reports 95% specificity for questions validated against a clinical examination.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 321

Metadata

Authors
Harlow, B. L., Kunitz, C. G., Nguyen, R. H. N., Rydell, S. A., Turner, R. M., & MacLehose, R. F.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
210
Issue
1
Pages
40.e1-40.e8
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023517643
Cited by
322
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 7
FWCI
13.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01-HD384285, R01-HD058608)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
vulvodynia, vulvar pain, prevalence, care-seeking behavior, health care access, Hispanic women, chronic vulvar pain, women's health, Boston metropolitan area
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Ethnicity, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Incidence, Prevalence, Young Adult, Vulvodynia

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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