Bibliotherapy in the treatment of sexual dysfunctions: a meta-analysis

CRD COMMENTARY: The aims were stated and the inclusion criteria were defined in terms of intervention and study design, although the participants and outcomes were not defined a priori. The literature search included two relevant databases and a search for both published and unpublished material. Publication bias was assessed using the fail-safe N value. It was not reported whether any restrictions on publication language were applied. The author used defined criteria to assess validity. Some relevant information on the individual studies was presented in tabular format, although no details were given of the methods used to assess the outcomes in the individual studies. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis without a prior assessment of statistical heterogeneity, and the influence of study validity on the results was not examined. The discussion considered some of the limitations of the review. The suitability of outcome ascertainment methods cannot be assessed without details of the methods used to assess outcomes in individual studies. In addition, the appropriateness of the meta-analysis cannot be judged without an evaluation of statistical heterogeneity. In view of these problems, caution should be applied when considering the results.