Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
