Sexual health plays a crucial role in the overall health and quality of life of adults. Currently, various Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) exist globally to assess sexual health from different dimensions. However, the quality of these measurement tools has not been sufficiently evaluated. To conduct a systematic review of existing PROMs used to assess sexual health in the general population, evaluate their methodological quality and measurement properties, and provide corresponding recommendations. The systematic review was conducted following the previously established research protocol in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were conducted in five databases from database inception until March 14, 2025: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Two researchers independently identified literature eligible for inclusion based on predefined criteria and qualitatively summarized the characteristics of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) scales. The methodological quality and measurement properties of the identified PROMs were evaluated using the COSMIN standard, and evidence was synthesized using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. A total of 27 PROMs for assessing sexual health in the general adult population were ultimately included. Among these, eleven instruments target both sexes, covering sexual function, sexual health, sexual pleasure, sexual violence, sexual addiction, sexual distress, sexual experience, and sexual satisfaction. Eight instruments are designed for men, assessing sexual health, sexual function, sexual satisfaction, sexual arousal, and genital appearance. Another eight instruments focus on women, evaluating sexual health, sexual function, sexual desire, and genital appearance. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) demonstrated a relatively more rigorous development process and more comprehensive validation evidence, thus receiving a Grade A recommendation. Furthermore, this review highlights the prevalent insufficiency of evidence regarding the methodological quality and key measurement properties (such as content validity and responsiveness) of tools in this field. There is an urgent need for more high-quality methodological studies to enhance the scientific rigor and applicability of these instrument
Shang et al. (Sat,) studied this question.