↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
542 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005540.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Candy, Yuan Chi, Lisa Graham-Wisener, Louise Jones, Michael King, Anne Lanceley, Victoria Vickerstaff, Adrian Tookman

Abstract

The proportion of people living with and surviving cancer is growing. This has led to increased awareness of the importance of quality of life, including sexual function, in those affected by cancer. Sexual dysfunction is a potential long-term complication of many cancer treatments. This includes treatments that have a direct impact on the pelvic area and genitals, and also treatments that have a more generalised (systemic) impact on sexual function.This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2007, on interventions for treating sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer for men and women. Since publication in 2007, there has been an increase in the number of trials for both men and women and this current review critiques only those for women. A review in press will present those for men. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for treating sexual dysfunction in women following treatments for cancer. To assess adverse events associated with interventions. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Dissertation Abstracts and the NHS Research Register. The searches were originally run in January 2007 and we updated these to September 2015. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of a treatment for sexual dysfunction. The trial participants were women who had developed sexual dysfunction as a consequence of a cancer treatment. We sought evaluations of interventions that were pharmaceutical, mechanical, psychotherapeutic, complementary or that involved physical exercise. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We considered meta-analysis for trials with comparable key characteristics. Since the original version of this review we have identified 11 new studies in women. The one study identified in the earlier version of this review was excluded in this update as it did not meet our narrower inclusion criteria to include only interventions for the treatment, not prevention, of sexual dysfunction.In total 1509 female participants were randomised across 11 trials. All trials explored interventions following treatment either for gynaecological or breast cancer. Eight trials evaluated a psychotherapeutic or psycho-educational intervention. Two trials evaluated a pharmaceutical intervention and one pelvic floor exercises. All involved heterosexual women. Eight studies were at a high risk of bias as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per trial arm. The trials varied not only in intervention content but in outcome measurements, thereby restricting combined analysis. In the trials evaluating a psychotherapeutic intervention the effect on sexual dysfunction was mixed; in three trials benefit was found for some measures of sexual function and in five trials no benefit was found. Evidence from the other three trials, two on different pharmaceutical applications and one on exercise, differed and was limited by small sample sizes. Only the trial of a pH-balanced vaginal gel found significant improvements in sexual function. The trials of pharmaceutical interventions measured harm: neither reported any. Only one psychological intervention trial reported that no harm occurred because of the intervention; the other trials of psychological support did not measure harm. Since the last version of this review, the new studies do not provide clear information on the impact of interventions for sexual dysfunction following treatments for cancer in women. The sexual dysfunction interventions in this review are not representative of the range that is available for women, or of the wider range of cancers in which treatments are known to increase the risk of sexual problems. Further evaluations are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 542 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 537 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 13%
Student > Bachelor 64 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 10%
Researcher 53 10%
Other 29 5%
Other 103 19%
Unknown 166 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 74 14%
Psychology 55 10%
Social Sciences 23 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Other 68 13%
Unknown 186 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,086,446
of 24,026,368 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,548
of 12,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,673
of 404,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,026,368 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 404,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.