ReviewSexual medicine2021
G-spot: Fact or Fiction?: A Systematic Review.
Review in Sexual medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Ventral onlay buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty for female urethral stricture improves female sexual functions.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Improving Sexual Function through Penis Enlargement: Comparing Silicone Pearls Implantation and Fat Grafting.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Women's experiences of female ejaculation and/or squirting: a Swedish cross-sectional study.Sexual medicine · 2024Article
- The lifelong orgasm gap: exploring age's impact on orgasm rates.Sexual medicine · 2024Article
- Cosmetic labiaplasty on minors: a review of current trends and evidence.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- A Novel Technique Combining Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (HADM) and Enriched Platelet Therapy (EPT) for the Treatment of Vaginal Laxity: A Single-Arm, Observational Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe G-spot, a putative erogenous area in the anterior vaginal wall, is a widely accepted concept in the mainstream media, but controversial in medical literature.
aimReview of the scientific data concerning the existence, location, and size of the G-spot.
methodsSearch on Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar from inception to November 2020 of studies on G-spot's existence, location and nature. Surveys, clinical, physiological, imaging, histological and anatomic studies were included.
main outcome measureExistence, location, and nature of the G-spot.
resultsIn total, 31 eligible studies were identified: 6 surveys, 5 clinical, 1 neurophysiological, 9 imaging, 8 histological/anatomical, and 2 combined clinical and histological. Most women (62.9%) reported having a G-spot and it was identified in most clinical studies (55.4% of women); in 2 studies it was not identified in any women. Imaging studies had contradictory results in terms of its existence and nature. Some showed a descending of the anterior vaginal wall, that led to the concept of clitourethrovaginal complex. In anatomic studies, one author could systematically identify the G-spot, while another group did not find it. Studies on innervation of the vaginal walls did not systematically identify an area with richer innervation.
conclusionThe different studies did systematically agree on the existence of the G-spot. Among the studies in which it was considered to exist, there was no agreement on its location, size, or nature. The existence of this structure remains unproved. Vieira-Baptista P, Lima-Silva J, Preti M, et al. G-spot: Fact or Fiction?: A Systematic Review. Sex Med 2021;9:100435.
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.