Sexual dysfunction and satisfaction in obsessive compulsive disorder: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic mental health condition recognized as one of the most serious causes of disability and impaired quality of life. In the literature, there is no review about sexual dysfunction and satisfaction in OCD. The current paper presents the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize data (1) comparing the presence of sexual dysfunction between groups with OCD and non-clinical groups, (2) investigating prevalence of each one of the sexual dysfunctions in patients with OCD, (3) comparing risk for sexual dysfunction in OCD groups with the prevalence in control groups, (4) comparing sexual satisfaction between OCD groups and non-clinical groups, and (5) investigating moderators of sexual dysfunction in OCD groups as compared with control groups. Gender, age, marital status, OCD symptom severity and subtypes, comorbid depressive disorders, comorbid anxiety disorders, concurrent psychiatric medications, comorbid general medical disease, and study quality will be investigated as moderators. METHODS: The protocol is reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines. The search will be conducted by independent reviewers during the second week of December 2019 by using electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library), by contacting the authors of the included studies to identify further data, by examining the references of the included studies, and by handsearching conference proceedings and theses/doctoral dissertations. The study quality will be independently evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Random-effect meta-analyses will be computed. If there is insufficient data for a specific outcome, only a systematic review will be performed. DISCUSSION: This review may support clinical practice highlighting the importance of the assessment of sexuality in patients with OCD and suggesting the use of therapeutic strategies dedicated to sexuality in this clinical population with the aim of improving patients' quality of life. Potential limitations will regard the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of the instruments used to assess sexual dysfunction/satisfaction and of the definitions used to conceptualize sexual dysfunction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42019132264.
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 | 0.083 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.006 |
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".