4.6 Article

Report of the international consensus development conference on female sexual dysfunction: Definitions and classifications

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 888-893

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67828-7

关键词

sexual dysfunctions, psychological; female; guidelines; classification; Delphi technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Female sexual dysfunction is highly prevalent but not well defined or understood. We evaluated and revised existing definitions and classifications of female sexual dysfunction. Materials and Methods: An interdisciplinary consensus conference panel consisting of 19 experts in female sexual dysfunction selected from 5 countries was convened by the Sexual Function Health Council of the American Foundation for Urologic Disease. A modified Delphi method was used to develop consensus definitions and classifications, and build on the existing framework of the International Classification of Diseases-10 and DSM-TV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, which were limited to consideration of psychiatric disorders. Results: Classifications were expanded to include psychogenic and organic causes of desire, arousal, orgasm and sexual pain disorders. An essential element of the new diagnostic system is the personal distress criterion. In particular, new definitions of sexual arousal and hypoactive sexual desire disorders were developed, and a new category of noncoital sexual pain disorder was added. In addition, a new subtyping system for clinical diagnosis was devised. Guidelines for clinical end points and outcomes were proposed, and important research goals and priorities were identified. Conclusions: We recommend use of the new female sexual dysfunction diagnostic and classification system based on physiological as well as psychological pathophysiologies, and a personal distress criterion for most diagnostic categories.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据