CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Sexual function and dysfunction studiesGenital Health and DiseasePelvic floor disorders treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia

Bornstein, Jacob, Goldstein, Andrew T., Stockdale, Colleen K., Bergeron, Sophie, Pukall, Caroline, Zolnoun, Denniz, Coady, Deborah·2016·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000001359
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the executive council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, the boards of directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and the International Pelvic Pain Society acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, on the basis of the significant increase in high-quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new terminology was achieved in the following 4 steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the 3 societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended on the basis of feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In 2015,the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and International Pelvic Pain Society adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0000000000001359

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McElhiney, 2006, Satyriasis: the antiquity term for vulvodynia J Sex M, ed, 3, 161

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–261 of 261

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bornstein, J., Goldstein, A. T., Stockdale, C. K., Bergeron, S., Pukall, C., Zolnoun, D., & Coady, D.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
  • Bornstein, Jacob
  • Goldstein, Andrew T.
ORCID
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016-04
Volume
127
Issue
4
Pages
745-751
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aog.0000000000001359
OpenAlex
W3143458973
Cited by
261
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 13
FWCI
24.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, terminology, classification, consensus conference, etiology, pathophysiology
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Societies, Medical, Vulvar Diseases, Pelvic Pain, Consensus, 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.

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