gabapentin for vulvodynia
In a randomized controlled trial, gabapentin (including extended-release) did not reduce tampon test, intercourse, or daily pain compared with placebo in women with vulvodynia, and the data do not support gabapentin alone as treatment.
Hypothesized mechanism
Mechanism not yet characterized in the substrate.
This is the model’s proposed mechanism from the sources on file, not a demonstrated causal pathway. How well the published record supports it is reflected in the rigor and plausibility dimensions of the score, and traced to the verbatim sources at the foot of the page.
How the score was reached, for this pair
The composite score is the sum of five dimensions, each scored 0 to 2 by the model from the evidence on file. Below is the sub-score this specific pair received on each, with what that dimension measures. It scored 6 of 10 overall, a moderate reading, from a direct rated moderate in strength.
The model’s overall reasoning for this pair is the summary at the top of the page, and the mechanism it proposed is in the section above.
Scored for women. Evidence generated in women (female population, ~100% female). (band F1, ×1.00).
Corroboration
All claims derive from a single source, an RCT ('Gabapentin for the Treatment of Vulvodynia: A Randomized Controlled Trial'). A single primary study normally scores 0, but this appears to be a well-designed RCT with adjusted analyses and confidence intervals; however, with no independent replication and no stated large sample, it warrants only a 1 at most—given it is a single primary trial, scoring 1 reflects a credible RCT.
Rigor
The source is explicitly a randomized controlled trial with placebo comparison and adjusted means with confidence intervals (claims 3-4). RCT design merits the highest rigor score.
Specificity
Both the drug (gabapentin) and condition (vulvodynia) are named directly throughout, including in the title and claim 7 ('do not support the recommendation of gabapentin alone as treatment for vulvodynia').
Plausibility
No mechanism is described in the claims; the trial reports null efficacy outcomes without any mechanistic rationale for gabapentin's action on vulvodynia pain. The findings actually argue against efficacy.
Consistency
Only a single study is presented, so consistency cannot be assessed across independent sources (n/a -> 1). Within the study, all endpoints (tampon test, intercourse pain, daily pain) consistently show no benefit, but this still derives from one trial.
Independent reading, reported beside the score
One outside model cross-reference is reported alongside the composite score. It is recorded separately and is not combined into the score.
MATRIX cross-reference
Every Cure’smachine-learned treatment-probability model, drawn from a biomedical knowledge graph across roughly 1,800 drugs and 22,000 diseases. It provides a model-based estimate of how plausible a drug-disease link is given the structure of biomedical knowledge, reported alongside the substrate’s own evidence.
For this pair. MATRIX maps this drug and disease in its graph but returned no treat-score for the pair, which can mean the predicted link fell below the model's publication threshold.
Scored over MATRIX’s own entities, confirming the same drug and disease: CHEBI:42797 (drug) and MONDO:0021722 (disease). Validate against the source: Every Cure’s MATRIX dataset ↗.
More on the MATRIX cross-reference and its provenance →Sex-specific pharmacokinetics
Documented differences in how this drug is handled in women, drawn from a primary source, an FDA label or the curated sex-PK literature (Zucker and Prendergast 2020; Soldin and Mattison 2009). It is reported beside the signal and is not part of the composite score; it informs how a result should be interpreted.
Layers not covered for this pair
Not covered for this pair. The cycle-phase layer is seeded for the strongest-evidence cases so far (PMDD), and this pair is not among them yet. A blank here means the pair is not covered by the layer, not that the effect was found to be phase-independent.
More on the cycle-phase layer and its sources →Source evidence · what the pipeline ingested
These are the sources the pipeline ingested to detect and score this signal, the published literature the model actually read, each tagged by study type. Where the model combined findings the claim is marked as a synthesis (S), and where the literature disagrees the contradiction is shown (!).
Every source below belongs to this signal’s evidence arm, Direct research. Whel reads each drug-condition pair through four such arms, each held to its own inclusion bar; a signal is surfaced through one of them.
- 1Tampon test pain with gabapentin was not different compared with the placebo PubMed · PMID 29742655 ↗
- 2extended-release gabapentin, as compared with a placebo, did not reduce tampon test pain PubMed · PMID 29742655 ↗
- 3Gabapentin also did not improve pain over placebo for sexual intercourse pain PubMed · PMID 29742655 ↗
- 4did not improve pain over placebo for sexual intercourse pain (adjusted mean 3.9, 95% CI 2.4-5.3 vs 4.0, 95% CI 2.5-5.4, difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.6; P=.76) and daily pain PubMed · PMID 29742655 ↗
These are the verbatim sources the pipeline surfaced and read; they may not be the full published record for a pair, and the score reflects the strength and agreement of the evidence rather than its volume. The strength of these source types is what the rigor dimension of the score reads off. MATRIX, sex-specific pharmacokinetics, and cycle phase are separate layers the pipeline does not ingest, external cross-references reported beside the score, and they link to their own sources in their sections above.
The primary sources and pipelines this evidence is drawn from →