SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Bladder pain syndrome and sexual function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety, accuracy, empathic communication, information quality, and readability of five large language model interfaces answering public questions about interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Pelvic floor muscle pain is associated with higher symptom scores and bladder pain perception in women with interstitial cystitis and bladder pain syndrome.World journal of urology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisBladder pain syndrome (BPS)/interstitial cystitis can adversely affect physical, mental, and sexual health. The aim of the systematic review is to compare sexual function between patients with BPS and healthy controls and to examine whether or not treatment of BPS improves sexual function.
methodsA literature search was conducted on Embase, Medline, and other databases. Studies comparing sexual function in BPS patients with healthy controls and before/after treatment were included. Where appropriate, data were pooled in a meta-analysis, using a random effects model and the standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for comparison.
resultsOut of 384 studies initially identified, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and 11 for the meta-analysis. Six studies compared sexual function in BPS cases with healthy controls. All studies found that the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was worse in BPS cases than in controls. Pooled data from 5 studies showed that the SMD was -1.02 (CI -1.64, -0.4) in total FSFI scores between the cases and controls, p=0.001. Further analysis showed better sexual function in all FSFI subdomains in healthy controls. Five studies compared sexual function in BPS patients before treatment with after treatment. Pooled data from 3 studies showed an overall improvement in total FSFI score after intravesical treatment: SMD=0.69 (CI 0.23, 1.14), p=0.003. Further analysis showed improvement in all subdomains.
conclusionOur review suggests that sexual function might be worse in BPS patients than in the general population, but it seems to improve with intravesical BPS treatment.
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.