MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414629543 · doi:10.1186/s12905-025-03960-4

Prevalence and correlates of female sexual dysfunction and sexual distress in reproductive-aged women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4414629543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Women s Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive medicineSexual dysfunctionFemale sexual dysfunctionDistressReproductive healthEpidemiologyYoung adultNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is defined as any dissatisfaction with sexual function domains such as sexual desire/arousal disorder, orgasmic disorders, and genital-pelvic pain/penetration disorder that in some cases leads to sexual distress (SD). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the prevalence and associated factors of FSD and SD among healthy reproductive-aged women. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Google Scholar and electronic databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Iranian database including the Scientific Information Database (SID), were searched and the publication year of the included articles were limited to January 1, 2015, through January 1, 2024 to identify studies that assessed FSD and SD among reproductive-aged women. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional and cohort studies. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this review. According to the results of 18 studies, the prevalence of FSD ranged between 20.6% and 95.0%. In addition, the prevalence of sexual desire disorder (SDD) was estimated between 8.0% and 91.0% based on the results of 16 studies. The prevalence of arousal disorder (9.0-91.0%), orgasm disorder (7.9-93.0%), lubrication problems (9.3-99.0%), pain disorder (8.2-99.0%), and satisfaction (21.4-86.0%). SD prevalence was 31.8-83.4%. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled FSD prevalence of 47.81% (95% CI: 39.19-56.43%). The factors related to FSD were classified into five main categories: sociodemographic, reproduction, interpersonal, psychological, and medical factors. Also, the associated factors of SD were classified into four categories: sociodemographic, interpersonal, psychological, and medical factors. The risk of bias for all of the included studies was good. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that reproductive-aged women are at high risk of FSD and SD due to various factors. As the literature regarding SD among the reproductive-aged population was limited, conducting high-quality cross-sectional studies with representative samples and using validated questionnaires are required to provide more precise data regarding its prevalence and associated factors across diverse cultural contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; Registration no. CRD42024491942.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it