SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for sexual health in the general population: a systematic review following the COSMIN 2.0 guidelines.
Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSexual health plays a crucial role in the overall health and quality of life of adults. Currently, various Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) exist globally to assess sexual health from different dimensions. However, the quality of these measurement tools has not been sufficiently evaluated.
aimTo conduct a systematic review of existing PROMs used to assess sexual health in the general population, evaluate their methodological quality and measurement properties, and provide corresponding recommendations.
methodsThe systematic review was conducted following the previously established research protocol in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were conducted in five databases from database inception until March 14, 2025: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Two researchers independently identified literature eligible for inclusion based on predefined criteria and qualitatively summarized the characteristics of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) scales. The methodological quality and measurement properties of the identified PROMs were evaluated using the COSMIN standard, and evidence was synthesized using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method.
resultsA total of 27 PROMs for assessing sexual health in the general adult population were ultimately included. Among these, eleven instruments target both sexes, covering sexual function, sexual health, sexual pleasure, sexual violence, sexual addiction, sexual distress, sexual experience, and sexual satisfaction. Eight instruments are designed for men, assessing sexual health, sexual function, sexual satisfaction, sexual arousal, and genital appearance. Another eight instruments focus on women, evaluating sexual health, sexual function, sexual desire, and genital appearance.
conclusionThe International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) demonstrated a relatively more rigorous development process and more comprehensive validation evidence, thus receiving a Grade A recommendation. Furthermore, this review highlights the prevalent insufficiency of evidence regarding the methodological quality and key measurement properties (such as content validity and responsiveness) of tools in this field. There is an urgent need for more high-quality methodological studies to enhance the scientific rigor and applicability of these instrument
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.