Results of a World Health Organization Scoping of Sexual Dysfunction-Related Guidelines: What Exists and What Is Needed.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction has long been overlooked in the broader context of sexual and reproductive health services. As a result, and in the absence of international sexual dysfunction treatment guidelines, recommendations have instead been developed by a variety of professional associations, worldwide. AIM: We conducted a mapping of existing recommendations addressing a wide array of conditions related to sexual function/dysfunction. METHODS: We contacted 25 professional associations from around the world and held an online open call for guidelines. OUTCOMES: Eligible submissions had to provide recommendations on treatment related to male or female sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: Twelve guidelines from 11 associations were included. Of the 195 recommendations extracted, 61% were related to men, 53% were related specifically to treatment, and 48% did some form of evidence assessment. CONCLUSION: Recommendations from this exercise are provided for WHO, international and national research institutions, ministries of health, and professional associations. Gonsalves L, Cottler-Casanova S, VanTreeck K, et al. Results of a World Health Organization Scoping of Sexual Dysfunction-Related Guidelines: What Exists and What Is Needed. J Sex Med 2020;17:2518-2521.

A reanalysis of the Institute for Research and Evaluation report that challenges non-US, school-based comprehensive sexuality education evidence base.

Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) prepares young people to make informed decisions about their sexuality. A review by the Institute of Research and Evaluation that analysed 43 CSE studies in non-US settings found the majority to be ineffective and concluded that there was little evidence of the effectiveness of CSE. We reanalysed the review to investigate its validity. We found several weaknesses with the review's methodology and analysis: (1) there was an absence of a clearly articulated search strategy and specific eligibility criteria; (2) the authors put forth criteria for programme effectiveness but included studies that did not collect the data needed to show programme effectiveness and thus several studies were determined to be ineffective by default; (3) the analytical framework minimised positive intervention effects and privileged negative intervention effects; and (4) there were errors in the data extracted, with 74% of studies containing one or more discrepancies. Overall, our reanalysis reveals that the IRE review suffers from significant methodological flaws and contains many errors which compromise its conclusions about CSE. Our reanalysis is a tool for the international community to refute CSE opposition campaigns based on poor science.