Study	Reason for exclusion
Bruner 1993	There are no data provided of any measure of vaginal or sexual function and no data were available from the authors
Decruze 1999	This comparative study used historical controls that were not perfectly matched and the care in the control group are not defined, but it seems that some form of dilation therapy was available
Jeffries 2006	Did not meet the inclusion criteria
Poma 1980	This is a case series of 5 selected cases treated many years after cancer therapy
Robinson 1999	Did not meet the inclusion criteria, flawed methodology and prone to bias
Sobotkowski 2006	This is a good comparative study but the focus is on the application of mitomycin with a speculum. Whilst it is reasonable to assume that the treatment group had 2 additional examinations with a speculum that must have stretched the vagina, the absence of any difference in the groups could be due to numerous factors including the possibility that both groups were receiving some form of dilation care from another source
Velaskar 2007	Case series with unblinded measurements, the measuring tool is not disclosed and altered vaginal length might represent a different tolerance to being measured due to experience, rather than changes in anatomy