ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised questionnaire for women with vaginal laxity.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual function and wellbeing of women using modern contraceptive methods in Rwanda: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Prevalence of vaginal laxity in primiparous women six months after birth.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
- Predictors of genital self-image in Iranian women: a cross-sectional study.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Ultrasound imaging of core muscles activity in multiparous women with vaginal laxity: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
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
introduction and hypothesisVaginal laxity (VL) can impair women´s quality of life and there are not many tools aimed at quantitatively addressing this complaint. Sexual distress can be present within this group of patients. The aim of our study is to carry out the cross-cultural adaptation/translation and validation of the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) for Brazilian Portuguese women with VL.
methodsWomen age ≥ 18 years, with VL (n=82), and without VL (n=53) were included. Continuous variables were described in the form of mean/standard deviation or median/range, and Student's t test was used. The Chi-squared test was used for dichotomous variables. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used for internal consistency and Spearman's correlation was used to assess construct validity (FSDS-R, Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI], and Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms [ICIQ-VS]). A significance level of 5% was established using a two-tailed test.
resultsWomen with VL presented more anal/vaginal sexual intercourse than women without VL (p=0.030). All three instruments (FSDS-R, FSFI, and ICIQ-VS) presented discriminant validity between women with and without VL (p<0.001). A high internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha =0.887) was found in women with VL and without VL (0.917). Regarding construct validity (n=82), there was a strong positive correlation between FSDS-R score and ICIQ-VS scales, except for a weaker correlation between the ICIQ-VS vaginal symptoms subscale (r: +0.2788; p=0.013). A moderate negative correlation was found between FSDS-R and all FSFI domains (p<0.001), except for pain (p<0.062).
conclusionsThe Brazilian version of the FSDS-R showed adequate internal consistency and discriminant validity, and a correlation was found with other instruments such as FSFI and ICIQ-VS.
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.