↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Vulvodynia: a consideration of clinical and methodological research challenges and recommended solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Vulvodynia: a consideration of clinical and methodological research challenges and recommended solutions
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s126259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serena Corsini-Munt, Kate M Rancourt, Justin P Dubé, Meghan A Rossi, Natalie O Rosen

Abstract

Vulvodynia, an idiopathic chronic vulvar pain, is a prevalent genital pain condition that results in significant impairment to sexual, relational, and psychological functioning of affected women and their romantic partners. Despite its high prevalence, there remain gaps in knowledge and health care access for women coping with vulvodynia, given its varied clinical presentation and no widely accepted treatment protocol. The past several decades have seen important advancements in understanding vulvodynia and developing effective treatments; however, progress has been impeded due to clinical and methodological challenges in conducting research with this vulnerable population. This review presents a brief overview of vulvodynia correlates, consequences, etiology, and treatment, and then turns its attention to considering the clinical and methodological challenges that hinder vulvodynia research. Identifying these barriers alongside potential mitigating solutions is essential to developing empirically supported treatments for all women affected by vulvodynia, across all age and minority groups. Potential solutions will require researchers to broaden eligibility criteria, examine subgroups of women, and expand definitions of treatment outcomes, and may be best facilitated by more active collaboration among research groups and across relevant disciplines. Engagement in these solutions may contribute to more representative findings and the development and dissemination of empirically based treatment options for this complex pain condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Other 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 37 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,404
of 1,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,035
of 322,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#44
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.