| Title |
Does the G-spot exist? A review of the current literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-012-1831-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vincenzo Puppo, Ilan Gruenwald |
| Abstract |
In 1950, Gräfenberg described a distinct erotogenic zone on the anterior wall of the vagina, which was referred to as the Gräfenberg spot (G-spot) by Addiego, Whipple (a nurse) et al. in 1981. As a result, the G-spot has become a central topic of popular speculation and a basis of a huge business surrounding it. In our opinion, these sexologists have made a hotchpotch of Gräfenberg's thoughts and ideas that were set forth and expounded in his 1950 article: the intraurethral glands are not the corpus spongiosum of the female urethra, and Gräfenberg did not report an orgasm of the intraurethral glands. G-spot amplification is a cosmetic surgery procedure for temporarily increasing the size and sensitivity of the G-spot in which a dermal filler or a collagen-like material is injected into the bladder-vaginal septum. All published scientific data point to the fact that the G-spot does not exist, and the supposed G-spot should not be identified with Gräfenberg's name. Moreover, G-spot amplification is not medically indicated and is an unnecessary and inefficacious medical procedure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 7% |
| Belgium | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| Peru | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#348,326
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#11
of 2,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,550
of 181,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 181,296 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.