Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Validation of a Visual Analogue Scale to measure the subjective perception of orgasmic intensity in females: The Orgasmometer-F.

Daniele Mollaioli, Stefania Di Sante, Erika Limoncin, Giacomo Ciocca, Giovanni Luca Gravina, Elisa Maseroli, Egidia Fanni, Linda Vignozzi, Mario Maggi, Andrea Lenzi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniele MollaioliDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Stefania Di SanteDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Erika LimoncinDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Giacomo CioccaDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Luca GravinaDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Elisa MaseroliDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Egidia FanniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Linda VignozziDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Mario MaggiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Andrea LenziDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Emmanuele A JanniniDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5874-039X
University of Florence · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The female orgasm represents one of the most complex functions in the field of human sexuality. The conjunction of the anatomical, physiological, psycho-relational and socio-cultural components contributes to make the female orgasm still partly unclear. The female orgasmic experience, its correlates and the relation with sexual desire, arousal and lubrication as predictors are highly debated in scientific community. In this context, little is known about the impact of female sexual dysfunction (SD) on sexual pleasure expressed by subjective orgasmic intensity, and there are no suitable psychometric tools suited to investigate this dimension. Thus, we validate, in female subjects, a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) that we named Orgasmometer-F, to verify if SD is accompanied by a lower perceived orgasmic intensity. A total of 526 women, recruited through a web-based platform and from sexological outpatient clinic, were enrolled in the study. They were divided into, on the basis of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) score in two groups: 1) 112women suffering from SD, (SD Group); and 2) 414 sexually healthy women (Control Group). The participants were requested to fill out the Orgasmometer-F, recording orgasmic intensity on a Likert scale from 0 (absence of orgasmic intensity) to 10 (maximum orgasmic intensity experienced). Women with SD experienced significantly lower orgasmic intensity than controls, as measured by the Orgasmometer-F (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, masturbatory frequency was positively correlated with orgasmic intensity, as were the lubrication, orgasm and sexual satisfaction domains of the FSFI. The Orgasmometer-F was well understood, had a good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.93) and a high AUC in differentiating between women with and without sexual dysfunction (AUC = 0.9; p < 0.0001). The ROC curve analysis showed that a cut-off <5 had 86.5% sensitivity (95% CI 82,8-89,6), 80.4% specificity (95% CI 71.8-87.3), 75.4% positive predictive value (PPV) and 89.5% negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, the Orgasmometer-F, a new psychometrically sound tool for measuring orgasmic intensity in female population, demonstrated that SD impair orgasmic intensity.

Indexed as

OrgasmPerceptionAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansPsychometricsSexual Dysfunctions, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID30157203
PMCPMC6114295
OpenAlexW2888862763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.