Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Coitus is not recommended - a systematic review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

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 = "12",
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

VL - 181

JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger

JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger

SN - 0041-5782

IS - 50

ER -

ID: 59709816