ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Does childbirth play a role in the etiology of rectocele?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Diastasis Recti Abdominis Between Primiparous and Age-Matched second-Parous Females After Vaginal Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse in nulliparae.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022Article
- Ultrasound imaging of maternal birth trauma.International urogynecology journal · 2021Review
- Specific Changes in Manometric Parameters are Associated with Non-improvement in Symptoms after Rectocele Repair.International urogynecology journal · 2020Observational
- Association between vaginal parity and rectocele.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- Digital rectal examination in the evaluation of rectovaginal septal defects.International urogynecology journal · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRectoceles are common among parous women and they are believed to be due to disruption or distension of the rectovaginal septum as a result of childbirth. However, the etiology of rectocele is likely to be more complex since posterior compartment prolapse does occur in nulliparous women. This study was designed to determine the role of childbearing as an etiological factor in true radiological rectocele.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of the data from 657 primiparous women recruited as part of a previously reported study and another ongoing prospective study. Women were invited for antenatal and postnatal appointments comprising an interview, clinical examination and translabial ultrasonography. The presence and depth of any rectocele were determined on maximum Valsalva maneuver, as was descent of the rectal ampulla. Potential demographic and obstetric factors as predictors of rectocele development were evaluated using either multiple regression or logistic regression analysis as appropriate.
resultsA true rectocele was identified in 4% of women antenatally and in 16% after childbirth (P < 0.001). Mean rectocele depth was 13.5 mm (10 - 23.2 mm). The mean antepartum position of the rectal ampulla on Valsalva maneuver was 4.39 mm above and it was 1.64 mm below the symphysis pubis postpartum (P < 0.0001). De novo appearance of true rectocele was significantly associated with a history of previous <20 weeks pregnancy and fetal birth weight. Body mass index and length of the second stage were associated with rectocele depth increase.
conclusionsChildbirth seems to play a distinct role in the pathogenesis of rectocele. Both maternal and fetal factors seem to contribute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.