da Costa Christiane Kelen Lucena, Spyrides Maria Helena Constantino, de Sousa Maria Bernardete Cordeiro
Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
Department of Atmospheric and Climatic Changes, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
BMC Womens Health. 2018 Dec 20;18(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0693-y.
Most studies on female sexual dysfunction are performed in population inventories and under specific clinical conditions. These approaches are performed using validated psychometric scales. Different scales to assess sexual function use different numbers of questions to characterize their domains. They also may or may not include domains of interaction between sexual partners. The objective of this study was to compare the precision between scales to be able to analyze their accuracy for better diagnosis of sexual dysfunction.
Fifty (50) healthy young women were enrolled in this study. Three questionnaires (FSFI, SQ-F, and GRISS) were applied to assess sexual function (n = 44). The accuracy measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for individual domains and to cross-validated pairwise comparison of the three analyzed instruments was used. Kruskall-Wallis test to analyze individual domains of the scales was also used.The P-value was established as 0.05.
The results showed that all domains and total FSFI and GRISS scores were significantly different between normal and dysfunctional women, but not for SQ-F domains. Indeed, AUC accuracy varied from excellent-good domain discrimination for FSFI and GRISS, but fair-poor for SQ-F. For the paired comparison between the three questionnaires a fair accuracy was detected. The specificity percentage was around 84% whereas that for sensibility was low, around 30%.
The best agreement was between FSFI and SQ-F, probably being related to high similar shared questions when compared to GRISS. The agreement between SQ-F and GRISS was low possible due to low number of questions in SQ-F to characterize similar domains. This study evidenced high agreement between scales to sensitivity and low agreement for specificity, thereby conferring fair accuracy between them. Thus, the limited grade for discriminatory capacity (AUC) for sexual response should be considered when comparing results from these three different questionnaires and also when comparing with other different scales. In addition, despite the diversity of scales, the high reliability and fit for their desire domain suggest that the FSFI scale has good accuracy for the current clinical assessment of women's sexual health.
NCT03241524 . Retrospectively registered on 08/02/2017.
大多数关于女性性功能障碍的研究是在人口普查和特定临床条件下进行的。这些研究采用经过验证的心理测量量表。不同的性功能评估量表使用不同数量的问题来描述其领域。它们也可能包含或不包含性伴侣之间互动的领域。本研究的目的是比较不同量表之间的精确性,以便能够分析它们在更好地诊断性功能障碍方面的准确性。
50名健康年轻女性参与了本研究。应用了三份问卷(女性性功能指数(FSFI)、性功能问卷-女性版(SQ-F)和格林国际性功能问卷(GRISS))来评估性功能(n = 44)。使用通过ROC曲线下面积(AUC)测量的单个领域的准确性以及对三种分析工具进行交叉验证的成对比较。还使用了Kruskal-Wallis检验来分析量表的各个领域。P值设定为0.05。
结果显示,正常女性和性功能障碍女性在所有领域以及FSFI和GRISS的总分上存在显著差异,但SQ-F领域没有。实际上,FSFI和GRISS的AUC准确性在领域区分方面从优秀到良好不等,但SQ-F的准确性一般到较差。对于三份问卷之间的成对比较,检测到的准确性一般。特异性百分比约为84%,而敏感性较低,约为30%。
FSFI和SQ-F之间的一致性最好,这可能与它们与GRISS相比有大量相似的共同问题有关。SQ-F和GRISS之间的一致性较低,可能是因为SQ-F中用于描述相似领域的问题数量较少。本研究证明量表在敏感性方面有高度一致性,而在特异性方面一致性较低,因此它们之间的准确性一般。因此,在比较这三份不同问卷的结果以及与其他不同量表进行比较时,应考虑性反应的鉴别能力(AUC)等级有限。此外,尽管量表多样,但它们对目标领域的高可靠性和适应性表明,FSFI量表在当前女性性健康临床评估中具有良好的准确性。
NCT03241524。于2017年2月8日进行回顾性注册。