ReviewSexual medicine2023
Web based research in sexual medicine: a position statement of the European Society for Sexual Medicine.
Review in Sexual medicine, 2023. 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.
- Understanding health care practitioners' criteria regarding the decision to treat men with premature ejaculation.Sexual medicine · 2026Article
- A retrospective-present-day analysis on acquired premature ejaculation.Sexual medicine · 2026Article
- Shaping the future of sexual medicine in Europe.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Are Specific Sexual Activities During Partnered Sex and Masturbation Related to Sexual Problems in Men?International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the use of the Web has brought major advances in every step of the research process, this also comes with several methodological challenges. Aim: The article presents the European Society for Sexual Medicine's position statements on key methodological concerns relative to Web-based research in sexual medicine. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic scoping review of articles using Web-based research methods in sexual medicine. For the creation of the statements, the authors processed the data from the methodology of the studies and formulated the final statements reaching 100% agreement in the group. Outcomes: European Society for Sexual Medicine statements were provided on the following domains: definition of the population of interest, selection of the population of interest, data collection quality, response rate, self-reported questionnaire, consent, and legal obligations. Results: Researchers should justify the relevance of the Internet population to the population of interest; should clearly describe how they identified study participants; should select and employ specific measures to avoid hoax; should explicitly describe the process of calculation of response and completion rates as well as the relative implications; should validate traditional sexual health questionnaires for online and, if possible, multilingual use; should not ignore consent in Web-based research; and need to be knowledgeable of the technical measures and legal obligations to protect anonymity. Implications: Researchers are advised to include trained computer scientists in their group, have a good understanding of their legal obligations as to collecting, storing and disseminating personal data, and design their studies by taking into account the challenges of Web-based research. Strengths and limitations: The heterogeneity of the included studies and methodological low quality of most of them was a limitation, which also shows the importance of this study and the need for guidelines regarding Web-based research. Conclusion: Large uncontrolled samples could be a threat to the quality of the studies and increase bias if researchers are not mindful of the methodological challenges they would need to account for.
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.