Sexual health

Caveat on this rating: Recruited from a forum for people who believe they have PSSD, retrospective and self-reported; the authors state the design does not allow estimation of incidence. Only 23 of 532 met the strict criteria. Dose did not predict severity and depression did, so the illness remains part of the picture.

Caveat on this rating: Self-submitted reports to a website built to collect them, assembled by the website's founder. A case series describes; it cannot count incidence or establish causation in any case. The cross-class overlap is unexplained. No rate, mechanism or treatment.

Caveat on this rating: A narrative review that does not grade or count its sources. Seven proposed mechanisms and none established. The phototherapy 'promising results' rest on evidence the abstract does not describe. The review's purpose is partly to raise recognition, which is stated.

Caveat on this rating: The declarations of interest read literally: "KH has previously acted as a temporary consultant for Pfizer (manufacturers of sildenafil). MT has been paid to lecture and received travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturers of buspirone) and Otsuka; his spouse is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline (manufacturers of bupropion)." Two of the six authors therefore have financial ties to the makers of the two drugs the review endorses, which is why independence is scored false despite the funding being public. The reviewers also warn that partial reporting of subscale results in the source trials could bias the effect estimates upward.

Caveat on this rating: A regulatory label change is a precautionary act on a safety signal, not proof of incidence, causation, or permanence. The evidence base the PRAC weighed was EudraVigilance reports, literature, social media, and manufacturer reviews. Clomipramine and vortioxetine were part of the same signal assessment but were explicitly not covered by the labelling recommendation. US FDA labelling does not carry equivalent wording.

Caveat on this rating: The authors state that including open-label studies and pooling across different sexual-function scales "could reduce the significance of our findings," so the 25.8-80.3% band is wide partly because the source studies were not uniform. No funding statement or conflict-of-interest disclosure was accessible for this paper.

Caveat on this rating: The high trust score reflects the review's method, funding, and journal, not the strength of the underlying trials: 398 men across 11 studies, several from the 1970s and 1980s, with waitlist controls and confidence intervals touching 1.0. The single trial claiming group therapy outperformed sildenafil alone (WMD -12.40 on the IIEF) had 20 participants and was run by one of the review's own authors, which is a direct conflict on the review's most eye-catching result.

Caveat on this rating: Both arms improved similarly on the primary desire and arousal outcomes, so this trial does not show that mindfulness specifically works — it shows that eight weeks of structured group attention works. There was no no-treatment or waitlist arm, so regression to the mean and expectancy effects cannot be separated out. All 148 participants were cisgender women, and the authors note the need to diversify samples.

Caveat on this rating: Every pooled effect is against a waitlist, not an active or placebo control, so attention and expectancy are baked into the d = 0.58 figure. The search ends at 2009, predating the internet-delivered treatments that now dominate access. No total participant count is reported in the abstract, and the MEDLINE record lists the publication type "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't", indicating unnamed external support.

Caveat on this rating: Only eight citations survived screening, yielding six studies per direction, and the depression-to-dysfunction association lost statistical significance in the partially adjusted model (RR/OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.23) until an outlying study was removed. Heterogeneity between studies was significant. Prospective cohorts show sequence, not causation.

Caveat on this rating: The funding statement reads: "This study was supported by an independent investigator-initiated grant from Pfizer Inc, New York, New York. Pfizer Inc provided sildenafil and matching placebo," with the role-of-sponsor statement adding that "Pfizer had no other role in the design and conduct of the study." Pfizer makes sildenafil, and several authors disclose financial relationships with it. The Cochrane review of this literature concluded that for women it remains uncertain whether sildenafil is more effective than placebo, and flagged that unpublished data could change the picture — a direct disagreement a reader should know about.

Caveat on this rating: The authors call this a pilot trial, and it reads like one: the headline erectile-dysfunction result missed significance at P = 0.065, the premature-ejaculation arm was flatly negative, and the control condition was a waitlist rather than an active comparison. Sexual self-confidence — the outcome closest to performance anxiety — was a secondary measure, and improved only marginally (P = 0.05). No funding statement was available.

Caveat on this rating: The funding statement reads: "This study was supported by an independent investigator-initiated grant from Pfizer Inc, New York, NY." Pfizer makes sildenafil. Several authors also disclose research support, consulting fees, or speakers-bureau payments from Pfizer. The trial predates routine registration, so there is no pre-registered protocol to check the reported outcomes against.

Caveat on this rating: The authors say plainly that because the study is cross-sectional, "causality versus comorbidity cannot be determined" — this is overlap, not a demonstration that depression causes low desire. Depression was defined partly by antidepressant use, which itself lowers desire, so the two exposures are entangled. The MEDLINE record lists the publication type "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't", indicating unnamed external non-government support.

Caveat on this rating: This is a one-time self-report survey (the journal graded it Level of Evidence III), so it can measure prevalence and correlation but not cause or direction. The MEDLINE record carries the publication type "Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't", meaning the study had external non-government support that the record does not name; the funding statement itself could not be reached, so funding is recorded UNKNOWN rather than guessed. Prevalence figures from surveys of this kind have been used commercially to size markets for desire drugs, which is a reason to read the distress threshold carefully rather than the headline 43.1%.

Caveat on this rating: This is a single-author narrative review with no systematic search protocol and no pooled analysis; the author's affiliation is his own consultancy, Pykonsult LLC, and no funding or conflict-of-interest statement was accessible. Its treatment section is explicitly hypothesis-generating — it applies "pharmacologic principles" to drugs and phytotherapies including buspirone, trazodone, yohimbine, l-citrulline, and bitter orange that have not been tested for sexual performance anxiety. Treat the prevalence range as the usable part and the supplement suggestions as untested.