Roy J Levin1, Stephanie Both2, Janniko Georgiadis3, Tuuli Kukkonen4, Kwangsung Park5, Claire C Yang6. 1. Reader in Physiology (Retired), Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK: Section 2. Electronic address: r.j.levin@sheffield.ac.uk. 2. Department of Psychosomatic Gynecology and Sexology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands: Section 3. 3. Department of Neuroscience, University Medical Center, Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands: Section 4. 4. College of Social and Applied Human Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada: Section 6. 5. Department of Urology, Chonnan National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea: Section 5. 6. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA: Section 1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The article consists of six sections written by separate authors that review female genital anatomy, the physiology of female sexual function, and the pathophysiology of female sexual dysfunction but excluding hormonal aspects. AIM: To review the physiology of female sexual function and the pathophysiology of female sexual dysfunction especially since 2010 and to make specific recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for evidence based medicine (2009) "levels of evidence" wherever relevant. CONCLUSION: Recommendations were made for particular studies to be undertaken especially in controversial aspects in all six sections of the reviewed topics. Despite numerous laboratory assessments of female sexual function, genital assessments alone appear insufficient to characterise fully the complete sexual response.
INTRODUCTION: The article consists of six sections written by separate authors that review female genital anatomy, the physiology of female sexual function, and the pathophysiology of female sexual dysfunction but excluding hormonal aspects. AIM: To review the physiology of female sexual function and the pathophysiology of female sexual dysfunction especially since 2010 and to make specific recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for evidence based medicine (2009) "levels of evidence" wherever relevant. CONCLUSION: Recommendations were made for particular studies to be undertaken especially in controversial aspects in all six sections of the reviewed topics. Despite numerous laboratory assessments of female sexual function, genital assessments alone appear insufficient to characterise fully the complete sexual response.
Keywords:
Brain Imaging; Genital Anatomy; Laboratory Assessments of Sexual Function and Dysfunction; Pathophysiology of Sexual Function; Physiology of Arousal and Orgasm; Psychological Function and Dysfunction
Authors: Kirstin Clephane; Julia I O'Loughlin; Tamara S Bodnar; M Claire Wilson; Jordan Tb Stariha; Amber N Craig; Joanne Weinberg; Lori A Brotto; Tierney K Lorenz Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 3.937
Authors: Sharon J Parish; James A Simon; Susan R Davis; Annamaria Giraldi; Irwin Goldstein; Sue W Goldstein; Noel N Kim; Sheryl A Kingsberg; Abraham Morgentaler; Rossella E Nappi; Kwangsung Park; Cynthia A Stuenkel; Abdulmaged M Traish; Linda Vignozzi Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Lauren L Zimmerman; Priyanka Gupta; Florence O'Gara; Nicholas B Langhals; Mitchell B Berger; Tim M Bruns Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2018-09-03