↓ Skip to main content

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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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, Louise Jones, Victoria Vickerstaff, Adrian Tookman, Michael King

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 268 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 21%
Researcher 41 15%
Unspecified 40 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 10%
Other 71 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 28%
Unspecified 56 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Psychology 41 15%
Social Sciences 20 7%
Other 37 13%

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
#847,484
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,669
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,741
of 334,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 334,229 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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 65% of its contemporaries.