ArticleBMC public health2025
The scopes, outcomes, and limitations of health trials on oral sex practices: a global scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the persistently rising prevalence of oral sex practices across the world, oral sex is now a global health issue. So far, different health trials have been conducted in an attempt to curb the health risks associated with oral sex practices. However, no known study has mapped the scope, outcomes, and limitations of these trials. Hence, this global scoping review aimed to map the existing evidence.
methodsThis scoping review was reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. On 7th April 2024, we conducted a systematic search of eight research databases and reviewed all trials that met the review's inclusion criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was used in the collation, summarization, and reporting of the data extracted from the included trials.
resultsOnly 15 relevant articles were included in the review and 11 of these were conducted in the USA. 33% of the reviewed studies employed a randomized control trial (RCT) design. None of the reviewed trials focused solely on oral sex practices, as they also investigated other sexual practices. The sample size of the reviewed trials ranged between 80 and 1543 with an average sample size of 506.7 per trial, while 53% of the trials focused on women and girls. Only six of the 15 trials reported baseline sexual behaviour which showed the heterogeneity of risky sexual practices, including oral sex, in different populations and contexts. Regarding behavioural modifications post-intervention, findings from the review mostly noted modification to sexual behaviours in the intervention groups, signifying intervention efficacy. However, common limitations of the reviewed trials, include reliance on self-reported data without other means of verification, limited generalizability of findings and short or no follow-up periods.
conclusionWorldwide, there is a paucity of health trials on oral sex practices. Despite methodological limitations, these trials reported mixed results, with the majority demonstrating positive changes in attitudes towards oral sex. Finally, there is a need for multi-country RCTs that are focused on oral sex practices, to ensure future policies related to oral sexual health are based on trials that are more rigorous, credible, and generalizable.
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.