Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The availability of alternative therapies for abnormal gynecologic bleeding has prompted a reexamination of the impact of total hysterectomy on a woman's quality of life. This paper examines the evidence about the impact of hysterectomy on one aspect of quality of life, sexuality. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the English and German language literature was conducted using the search terms "sexuality," "hysterectomy," "libido," "orgasm," and "outcomes." Additional papers found in the bibliographies of theses papers were reviewed. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Eighteen studies were found, eight prospective and ten retrospective. With a few exceptions, the methodologic quality of the studies was poor, but we opted to review all of the studies given the paucity of data on this important subject. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The studies were evaluated for methodologic quality using a scoring system described in the paper and for their findings concerning the impact of hysterectomy on sexuality. chi(2) and Fischer exact test were used to analyze nominal variables. Outcome measures were usually not validated and most studies did not consider important confounding factors. Most studies in this review showed either no change or an enhancement of sexuality in women who had a hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: The majority of research evaluating the effect of hysterectomy on sexuality was poorly designed. The available evidence shows that quality of life is improved for most women who had hysterectomy and that hysterectomy did not adversely affect sexuality. A number of confounding factors with the potential to have either a positive or negative impact on sexuality, independent of hysterectomy, should be taken into account in future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".