Female sexual function in bladder cancer: A review of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bladder cancer (BC) treatments are known to be invasive; nevertheless, research into the long-term effects is limited and in the context of sexual function often male focussed. Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) has been reported in up to 75% of female patients. This systematic scoping review examines the literature on sexual consequences of BC in female patients. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence on female sexual function in BC to identify areas of unmet need and research priorities. Evidence Acquisition: statement following Levac et al. methodology. Identified reports were reviewed according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria. 45 publications were included. Evidence Synthesis: There was an inconsistent use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), with commonly used PROMs having a narrow symptom focus. However, common symptoms emerged: loss of desire, orgasmic disorders, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, difficult intromission, reduced clitoral sensation, psychological concerns related to diagnosis, fear of contamination and body image. Sexual activity was reduced in most groups, despite women expressing a motivation to retain sexual function. The degree of symptom distress associated with FSD is underreported. Evidence emerged regarding a gap for women in clinician counselling and follow-up. Conclusions: The patient's perspective of FSD in BC patients is poorly understood and under-addressed in clinical practice. There have been very few qualitative studies of FSD in BC. Any intervention designed to address the problem must start with greater understanding of both the patients' and clinicians' perspective. Lay Summary: We examined the evidence on sexual consequences of BC in women. It is apparent that despite common themes of sexual dysfunction emerging, the problem is poorly understood and addressed in clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".