Impact of Fibromyalgia Syndrome on Female Sexual Function: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine sexual dysfuntion in women diagnosed with FMS compared with healthy controls. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The literature search was conducted using PubMed Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, SciELO, and PsycINFO PROQUEST until February 2021. Observational studies with 2 groups (women with FMS and healthy controls) that assessed sexual function were included. Pooled effect was calculated using Cohen standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included comprising 1367 women (766 diagnosed with FMS and 601 healthy controls). The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our findings showed a significant sexual dysfunction in women diagnosed with FMS (SMD = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.18-2.26; p < 0.001). In addition, the secondary outcomes more affected in women with FMS were sexual satisfaction (SMD = -2.09; 95% CI, -2.83 to -1.36; p < 0.001) and the pain during sexual relations (SMD = -1.97; 95% CI, -2.81 to -1.12; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women with FMS showed a significant sexual dysfunction and other related sexual difficulties, such as increase in sexual pain and a decreased sexual desire or sexual satisfaction, compared with healthy women.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".