Dyspareunia: another argument for removal - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comment
. 2005 Feb;34(1):44-6, 57-61; author reply 63-7.
doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-7473-z.
Affiliations
- PMID: 16092029
- DOI: 10.1007/s10508-005-7473-z
Comment
Dyspareunia: another argument for removal
Charles Moser. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb.
No abstract available
Comment on
- Should dyspareunia be retained as a sexual dysfunction in DSM-V? A painful classification decision.
Binik YM. Binik YM. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):11-21. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-0998-4. Arch Sex Behav. 2005. PMID: 15772767 Review.
Similar articles
- A rose by any other name: should dyspareunia be reclassified?
Strassberg DS. Strassberg DS. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):48-9, 57-61; author reply 63-7. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-7476-9. Arch Sex Behav. 2005. PMID: 16092031 No abstract available. - Weighing the pro's and con's of reclassifying dyspareunia.
First MB. First MB. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):30-2, 57-61; author reply 63-7. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-7465-z. Arch Sex Behav. 2005. PMID: 16092021 No abstract available. - A slightly different idea.
Levine SB. Levine SB. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):38-9, 57-61; author reply 63-7. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-7469-3. Arch Sex Behav. 2005. PMID: 16092025 No abstract available. - Peer commentaries on Binik (2005).
[No authors listed] [No authors listed] Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Feb;34(1):23-61. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-0999-3. Arch Sex Behav. 2005. PMID: 15772768 Review. No abstract available. - The DSM diagnostic criteria for dyspareunia.
Binik YM. Binik YM. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Apr;39(2):292-303. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9563-x. Arch Sex Behav. 2010. PMID: 19830537 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical