Harvard
Jespersen, C, Celicanin, MM, Wandall-Holm, MF
, Kirschner, B, Kjær, MM, Ingerslev, MD & Schroll, JB 2019, '
Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review',
Ugeskrift for Laeger, bind 181, nr. 50.
APA
Jespersen, C., Celicanin, M. M., Wandall-Holm, M. F.
, Kirschner, B., Kjær, M. M., Ingerslev, M. D., & Schroll, J. B. (2019).
Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review.
Ugeskrift for Laeger,
181(50).
CBE
MLA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
@article{057e8e7ce1e94e9ebb6a53b805e824b2,
title = "Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review",
abstract = "The overall positive effects of coitus have not been estimated before. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for coitus versus everything. A search was made in MEDLINE resulting in 1,121 hits. The authors screened studies and conducted a meta-analysis. Thirty publications randomising to coitus or something else were included. Pooled results showed a relative risk of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96) favouring {"}everything else{"} over coitus. Subjective pleasure is not a primary outcome in any of the included studies, and trialists must have regarded this outcome as less important. In conclusion, coitus cannot be recommended based on the published randomised studies. Evaluation by evidence-based methodology makes it clear, that better alternatives exist.",
author = "Cecilie Jespersen and Celicanin, {Milica Maksimovic} and Wandall-Holm, {Malthe Faurschou} and Benny Kirschner and Kj{\ae}r, {Mette Mandrup} and Ingerslev, {Marie Diness} and Schroll, {Jeppe Bennekou}",
year = "2019",
month = dec,
day = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "181",
journal = "Ugeskrift for Laeger",
issn = "0041-5782",
publisher = "Almindelige Danske Laegeforening",
number = "50",
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review
AU - Jespersen, Cecilie
AU - Celicanin, Milica Maksimovic
AU - Wandall-Holm, Malthe Faurschou
AU - Kirschner, Benny
AU - Kjær, Mette Mandrup
AU - Ingerslev, Marie Diness
AU - Schroll, Jeppe Bennekou
PY - 2019/12/9
Y1 - 2019/12/9
N2 - The overall positive effects of coitus have not been estimated before. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for coitus versus everything. A search was made in MEDLINE resulting in 1,121 hits. The authors screened studies and conducted a meta-analysis. Thirty publications randomising to coitus or something else were included. Pooled results showed a relative risk of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96) favouring "everything else" over coitus. Subjective pleasure is not a primary outcome in any of the included studies, and trialists must have regarded this outcome as less important. In conclusion, coitus cannot be recommended based on the published randomised studies. Evaluation by evidence-based methodology makes it clear, that better alternatives exist.
AB - The overall positive effects of coitus have not been estimated before. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for coitus versus everything. A search was made in MEDLINE resulting in 1,121 hits. The authors screened studies and conducted a meta-analysis. Thirty publications randomising to coitus or something else were included. Pooled results showed a relative risk of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96) favouring "everything else" over coitus. Subjective pleasure is not a primary outcome in any of the included studies, and trialists must have regarded this outcome as less important. In conclusion, coitus cannot be recommended based on the published randomised studies. Evaluation by evidence-based methodology makes it clear, that better alternatives exist.
M3 - Review
C2 - 31908260
VL - 181
JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger
JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger
SN - 0041-5782
IS - 50
ER -