INTRODUCTION: A validated cutpoint for the total Female Sexual Function Index scale score exists to classify women with and without sexual dysfunction. However, there is no sexual desire (SD) domain-specific cutpoint for assessing the presence of diminished desire in women with or without a sexual desire problem. AIMS: This article defines and validates a specific cutpoint on the SD domain for differentiating women with and without hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). METHODS: Eight datasets (618 women) were included in the development dataset. Four independent datasets (892 women) were used in the validation portion of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of HSDD was clinician-derived. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to develop the cutpoint, which was confirmed in the validation dataset. RESULTS: The use of a diagnostic cutpoint for classifying women with SD scores of 5 or less on the SD domain as having HSDD and those with SD scores of 6 or more as not having HSDD maximized diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. In the development sample, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting HSDD (with or without other conditions) were 75% and 84%, respectively, and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were 92% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support the diagnostic accuracy of the SD domain for use in future observational studies and clinical trials of HSDD.
INTRODUCTION: A validated cutpoint for the total Female Sexual Function Index scale score exists to classify women with and without sexual dysfunction. However, there is no sexual desire (SD) domain-specific cutpoint for assessing the presence of diminished desire in women with or without a sexual desire problem. AIMS: This article defines and validates a specific cutpoint on the SD domain for differentiating women with and without hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). METHODS: Eight datasets (618 women) were included in the development dataset. Four independent datasets (892 women) were used in the validation portion of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of HSDD was clinician-derived. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to develop the cutpoint, which was confirmed in the validation dataset. RESULTS: The use of a diagnostic cutpoint for classifying women with SD scores of 5 or less on the SD domain as having HSDD and those with SD scores of 6 or more as not having HSDD maximized diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. In the development sample, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting HSDD (with or without other conditions) were 75% and 84%, respectively, and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were 92% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support the diagnostic accuracy of the SD domain for use in future observational studies and clinical trials of HSDD.
Authors: David B Sarwer; Jacqueline C Spitzer; Thomas A Wadden; Raymond C Rosen; James E Mitchell; Kathy Lancaster; Anita Courcoulas; William Gourash; Nicholas J Christian Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Maíra de Menezes Franco; Patricia Driusso; Kari Bø; Daniela Cristina Carvalho de Abreu; Lucia Alves da Silva Lara; Ana Carolina Japur de Sá Rosa E Silva; Cristine Homsi Jorge Ferreira Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kari Bo; Helena C Frawley; Bernard T Haylen; Yoram Abramov; Fernando G Almeida; Bary Berghmans; Maria Bortolini; Chantale Dumoulin; Mario Gomes; Doreen McClurg; Jane Meijlink; Elizabeth Shelly; Emanuel Trabuco; Carolina Walker; Amanda Wells Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Dale S Bond; Jelena M Pavlović; Richard B Lipton; J Graham Thomas; Kathleen B Digre; Julie Roth; Lucille Rathier; Kevin C O'Leary; E Whitney Evans; Rena R Wing Journal: Headache Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Andrea F DiMartini; Mary Amanda Dew; Zeeshan Butt; Mary Ann Simpson; Daniela P Ladner; Abigail R Smith; Peg Hill-Callahan; Brenda W Gillespie Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: J Segelman; C Buchli; A Svanström Röjvall; P Matthiessen; S Arver; M Bottai; M Ahlberg; R Jasuja; A Flöter-Rådestad; A Martling Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Christina Wang; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Leonard R DeRogatis; Glenn R Cunningham; Ronald S Swerdloff; Peter Preston; David Cella; Peter J Snyder; Thomas M Gill; Shalender Bhasin; Alvin M Matsumoto; Raymond C Rosen Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Reneé H Moore; David B Sarwer; Jeffrey A Lavenberg; Ilana B Lane; Joanna L Evans; Sheri Volger; Thomas A Wadden Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 5.002