ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2012
Does the G-spot exist? A review of the current literature.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Re: "the relationship between clitourethrovaginal complex and female orgasm". A rebuttal.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Hybrid high- and low-molecular weight chains of hyaluronan is an effective modality treatment for increasing female sexual satisfaction: An interventional, randomized-control parallel study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- G-spot: Fact or Fiction?: A Systematic Review.Sexual medicine · 2021Review
- Materials Selection for the Injection into Vaginal Wall for Treatment of Vaginal Atrophy.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2021Review
- Platelet-rich plasma administration to the lower anterior vaginal wall to improve female sexuality satisfaction.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- Women self-reported G-spot existence and relation with sexual function and genital perception.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
- Survey on Aesthetic Vulvovaginal Procedures: What do Portuguese Doctors and Medical Students Think?Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2017Article
- The whole versus the sum of some of the parts: toward resolving the apparent controversy of clitoral versus vaginal orgasms.Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology · 2016Article
- G-spot augmentation with autologous fat transplantation.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2015Article
- Anatomic distribution of nerves and microvascular density in the human anterior vaginal wall: prospective study.PloS one · 2014Article
- Female genital cosmetic surgery: a review of techniques and outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 1950, Gräfenberg described a distinct erotogenic zone on the anterior wall of the vagina, which was referred to as the Gräfenberg spot (G-spot) by Addiego, Whipple (a nurse) et al. in 1981. As a result, the G-spot has become a central topic of popular speculation and a basis of a huge business surrounding it. In our opinion, these sexologists have made a hotchpotch of Gräfenberg's thoughts and ideas that were set forth and expounded in his 1950 article: the intraurethral glands are not the corpus spongiosum of the female urethra, and Gräfenberg did not report an orgasm of the intraurethral glands. G-spot amplification is a cosmetic surgery procedure for temporarily increasing the size and sensitivity of the G-spot in which a dermal filler or a collagen-like material is injected into the bladder-vaginal septum. All published scientific data point to the fact that the G-spot does not exist, and the supposed G-spot should not be identified with Gräfenberg's name. Moreover, G-spot amplification is not medically indicated and is an unnecessary and inefficacious medical procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.