Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 476

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Definitions of women's sexual dysfunction reconsidered: Advocating expansion and revision

Basson, R., Leiblum, S., Brotto, L., Derogatis, L., Fourcroy, J., Fugl-Meyer, K., Graziottin, A., Heiman, J. R., Laan, E., Meston, C., Schover, L., van Lankveld, J., Schultz, W. Weijmar·2003·Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

In light of various shortcomings of the traditional nosology of women's sexual disorders for both clinical practice and research, an international multi-disciplinary group has reviewed the evidence for traditional assumptions about women's sexual response. It is apparent that fullfilment of sexual desire is an uncommon reason/incentive for sexual activity for many women and, in fact, sexual desire is frequently experienced only after sexual stimuli have elicited subjective sexual arousal. The latter is often poorly correlated with genital vasocongestion. Complaints of lack of subjective arousal despite apparently normal genital vasocongestion are common. Based on the review of existing evidence-based research, many modifications to the definitions of women's sexual dysfunctions are recommended. There is a new definition of sexual interest/desire disorder, sexual arousal disorders are separated into genital and subjective subtypes and the recently recognized condition of persistent sexual arousal is included. The definition of dyspareunia reflects the possibility of the pain precluding intercourse. The anticipation and fear of pain characteristic of vaginismus is noted while the assumed muscular spasm is omitted given the lack of evidence. Finally, a recommendation is made that all diagnoses be accompanied by descriptors relating to associated contextual factors and to the degree of distress.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/01674820309074686

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 476

Metadata

Authors
Basson, R., Leiblum, S., Brotto, L., Derogatis, L., Fourcroy, J., Fugl-Meyer, K., Graziottin, A., Heiman, J. R., Laan, E., Meston, C., Schover, L., van Lankveld, J., & Schultz, W. W.
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2003-01
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
221-229
ISSN
  • 0167-482X (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8942
OpenAlex
W2107116520
Cited by
476
References
4
FWCI
15.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Definitions of women's sexual dysfunction reconsidered: Advocating expansion and revision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/01674820309074686
The paper
Basson, R., Leiblum, S., Brotto, L., Derogatis, L., Fourcroy, J., Fugl-Meyer, K., Graziottin, A., Heiman, J. R., Laan, E., Meston, C., Schover, L., van Lankveld, J., & Schultz, W. W. (2003). Definitions of women's sexual dysfunction reconsidered: Advocating expansion and revision. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.3109/01674820309074686

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.