Female Sexual Dysfunction: An Appraisal of Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines Using the AGREE II Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is a prevalent concern among Canadian women. While clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly relied upon to guide evidence-based decision making, the availability and quality of published Canadian CPGs for FSD is unknown. More broadly, there is also a paucity of literature, which has evaluated documents guiding Canadian CPG development. A search was conducted to identify Canadian documents describing CPG development processes. Eligible documents underwent full-text review to extract content pertaining to scope and target audience. A separate search was conducted to identify Canadian CPGs specific to FSD. Eligible documents underwent quality appraisal using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Four documents outlining CPG development processes were identified. While there were similarities in the steps for CPG development, discrepancies in scope, target user, and affiliated development group across the Canadian methodologies were noted. One Canadian CPG specific to FSD was identified. Th is CPG scored highly in the domains of Scope and Purpose (79%), and Clarity of Presentation (86%), although it did not reach the same quality threshold for the remaining domains. Our results suggest the need for consistent guidelines that are implementable by Canadian CPG developers across the diverse clinical landscape, including women’s sexual health. Th is is the first study to evaluate the quality of CPGs for FSD using the AGREE II instrument. Our appraisal identifies areas of weakness that should be considered when updating this CPG in the future and in the development of new CPGs in this field.
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 | 0.242 | 0.551 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".