Rebecca G Rogers1, Rachel N Pauls2, Ranee Thakar3, Melanie Morin4, Annette Kuhn5, Eckhard Petri6, Brigitte Fatton7, Kristene Whitmore8, Sheryl Kinsberg9, Joseph Lee10. 1. Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 2. TriHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio. 3. Croydon University Hospital Croydon, London, United Kingdom. 4. Universite de Sherbrooke, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 5. University Teaching Hospital Berne (Inselspital), Bern, Switzerland. 6. University of Greifswald, Schwerin, Germany. 7. University Hospital Nîmes, Nimes, Languedoc-Roussillon, France. 8. Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 10. University of New South Wales, St Vincents Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: The terminology in current use for sexual function and dysfunction in women with pelvic floor disorders lacks uniformity, which leads to uncertainty, confusion, and unintended ambiguity. The terminology for the sexual health of women with pelvic floor dysfunction needs to be collated in a clinically-based consensus report. METHODS: This report combines the input of members of the Standardization and Terminology Committees of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA), and the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by many external referees. Internal and external review was developed to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus). Importantly, this report is not meant to replace, but rather complement current terminology used in other fields for female sexual health and to clarify terms specific to women with pelvic floor dysfunction. RESULTS: A clinically based terminology report for sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction encompassing over 100 separate definitions, has been developed. Key aims have been to make the terminology interpretable by practitioners, trainees, and researchers in female pelvic floor dysfunction. Interval review (5-10 years) is anticipated to keep the document updated and as widely acceptable as possible. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based terminology report for female sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction has been produced aimed at being a significant aid to clinical practice and a stimulus for research.
AIMS: The terminology in current use for sexual function and dysfunction in women with pelvic floor disorders lacks uniformity, which leads to uncertainty, confusion, and unintended ambiguity. The terminology for the sexual health of women with pelvic floor dysfunction needs to be collated in a clinically-based consensus report. METHODS: This report combines the input of members of the Standardization and Terminology Committees of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA), and the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by many external referees. Internal and external review was developed to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus). Importantly, this report is not meant to replace, but rather complement current terminology used in other fields for female sexual health and to clarify terms specific to women with pelvic floor dysfunction. RESULTS: A clinically based terminology report for sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction encompassing over 100 separate definitions, has been developed. Key aims have been to make the terminology interpretable by practitioners, trainees, and researchers in female pelvic floor dysfunction. Interval review (5-10 years) is anticipated to keep the document updated and as widely acceptable as possible. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based terminology report for female sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction has been produced aimed at being a significant aid to clinical practice and a stimulus for research.