ArticleBMC women's health2018
Consistency of three different questionnaires for evaluating sexual function in healthy young women.
Article in BMC women's health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03241524 (Consistency of Three Different Questionnaires to Evaluating Sexual Functions in Young Healthy Women Before and After a Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Consistency of Three Different Questionnaires to Evaluating Sexual Functions in Young Healthy Women Before and After a Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Program
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of Severity of Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause Symptoms After Carbon Dioxide Laser vs Vaginal Estrogen Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of the pandemic on sexual function: A comparative study between women of reproductive age and postmenopausal women.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Observational
- How Is the Sexual Function of Premenopausal Chinese Women Without Hyperlipidemia?Sexual medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost studies on female sexual dysfunction are performed in population inventories and under specific clinical conditions. These approaches are performed using validated psychometric scales. Different scales to assess sexual function use different numbers of questions to characterize their domains. They also may or may not include domains of interaction between sexual partners. The objective of this study was to compare the precision between scales to be able to analyze their accuracy for better diagnosis of sexual dysfunction.
methodsFifty (50) healthy young women were enrolled in this study. Three questionnaires (FSFI, SQ-F, and GRISS) were applied to assess sexual function (n = 44). The accuracy measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for individual domains and to cross-validated pairwise comparison of the three analyzed instruments was used. Kruskall-Wallis test to analyze individual domains of the scales was also used.The P-value was established as 0.05.
resultsThe results showed that all domains and total FSFI and GRISS scores were significantly different between normal and dysfunctional women, but not for SQ-F domains. Indeed, AUC accuracy varied from excellent-good domain discrimination for FSFI and GRISS, but fair-poor for SQ-F. For the paired comparison between the three questionnaires a fair accuracy was detected. The specificity percentage was around 84% whereas that for sensibility was low, around 30%.
conclusionsThe best agreement was between FSFI and SQ-F, probably being related to high similar shared questions when compared to GRISS. The agreement between SQ-F and GRISS was low possible due to low number of questions in SQ-F to characterize similar domains. This study evidenced high agreement between scales to sensitivity and low agreement for specificity, thereby conferring fair accuracy between them. Thus, the limited grade for discriminatory capacity (AUC) for sexual response should be considered when comparing results from these three different questionnaires and also when comparing with other different scales. In addition, despite the diversity of scales, the high reliability and fit for their desire domain suggest that the FSFI scale has good accuracy for the current clinical assessment of women's sexual health. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT03241524 . Retrospectively registered on 08/02/2017.
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.