Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32529563›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2021

Biofeedback versus electrical stimulation for sexual dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial.

Behnaz Aalaie, Behroz Tavana, Zahra Rezasoltani, Solmaz Aalaei, Jamshid Ghaderi, Afsaneh Dadarkhah

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Behnaz AalaieSchool of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Etemadzadeh St, Western Fatemi, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Postal code 1411718541.
Behroz TavanaClinical Biomechanics and Ergonomics Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra RezasoltaniClinical Biomechanics and Ergonomics Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Solmaz AalaeiSchool of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Jamshid GhaderiSchool of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Afsaneh DadarkhahSchool of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Etemadzadeh St, Western Fatemi, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, Postal code 1411718541. a.dadarkhah@ajaums.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0103-7046
Aja University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisSexual dysfunction is a common problem in the general population. We compared the effects of biofeedback and electrical stimulation on the symptoms of sexual pain dysfunction in women with urinary stress incontinence.

methodsWe carried out a parallel randomized clinical trial in an outpatient department for physical medicine and rehabilitation at a university hospital. Based on DSM-5 criteria for sexual dysfunction, 22 patients with sexual dysfunction and stress incontinence were included and randomly allocated to each study arm. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the Female Sexual Function Index. Each group underwent pertinent treatment for 100 min, two times a week for 6 weeks.

resultsBoth groups showed favorable outcomes in increasing Female Sexual Function Index mean scores and their domains. However, for improving sexual function, women in the biofeedback group benefited more than those receiving electrical stimulation. Biofeedback raised desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, and satisfaction scores more than electrical stimulation (all p ≤ 0.025). Both interventions decreased pain during or following vaginal penetration similarly (p = 0.985).

conclusionsBoth biofeedback and electrical stimulation increased the Female Sexual Function Index score. However, to improve sexual function, women undergoing biofeedback seem to benefit more than those receiving electrical stimulation. We recommend considering the prescription of biofeedback for the treatment of sexual dysfunction because of its efficacy, lack of adverse effects, and easy application.

Indexed as

Sexual Dysfunction, PhysiologicalUrinary IncontinenceBiofeedback, PsychologyElectric StimulationFemaleHumansPelvic FloorTreatment OutcomeBiofeedbackElectrical stimulationOrgasmPelvic floorRehabilitationSexual dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID32529563
OpenAlexW3034813713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.