Vaginal Energy-Based Devices.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 26(5):287-298, 2020 05.PMID: 32324684Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Obstetrics and Gynecology/Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Vaginal Diseases/th [Therapy] | Consensus | Female | Gynecology/is [Instrumentation] | Humans | Laser Therapy/is [Instrumentation] | Radiofrequency Ablation/is [Instrumentation] | Rejuvenation | United States | United States Food and Drug Administration | Vaginal Diseases/rh [Rehabilitation]Year: 2020ISSN:
  • 2151-8378
Name of journal: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryAbstract: This clinical consensus statement on vaginal energy-based devices (EBDs) reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group. The American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 40 statements were assessed and divided into 5 categories: (1) patient criteria, (2) health care provider criteria, (3) efficacy, (4) safety, and (5) treatment considerations. Of the 40 statements that were assessed, 28 reached consensus and the remaining 12 did not. Lack of evidence was among the main reasons that vulvovaginal EBD treatment statements did not reach consensus.All authors: Alshiek J, Clark A, Garcia B, Iglesia CB, Malik SA, Minassian V, Murphy M, Shobeiri SA, Sokol ER, Tran AOriginally published: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 26(5):287-298, 2020 May.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-07-09
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 32324684 Available 32324684

This clinical consensus statement on vaginal energy-based devices (EBDs) reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group. The American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 40 statements were assessed and divided into 5 categories: (1) patient criteria, (2) health care provider criteria, (3) efficacy, (4) safety, and (5) treatment considerations. Of the 40 statements that were assessed, 28 reached consensus and the remaining 12 did not. Lack of evidence was among the main reasons that vulvovaginal EBD treatment statements did not reach consensus.

English

Powered by Koha