ArticlePeerJ2016
What are the probable predictors of urinary incontinence during pregnancy?
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparity, age and overweight/obesity as risk factors for urinary incontinence in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
- Derivation of a risk model to predict urinary incontinence during pregnancy: a research article.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- The Experience of Healthy Pregnancy in High Parity Women: A Phenomenological Study in North Jordan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Association between sexual intercourse frequency and pelvic floor muscle morphology in pregnant women.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Urinary incontinence among urban and rural community dwelling older women: prevalence, risk factors and quality of life.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Urinary incontinence among pregnant women attending an antenatal clinic at a tertiary teaching hospital in North-East Malaysia.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2019Article
- Urinary incontinence and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal care in public health facilities of Mekelle city, Tigray, Ethiopia.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives. The frequency, predisposing factors and impact of urinary incontinence (UI) on quality of life (QoL) during pregnancy were investigated. Materials and Method. A preliminary cross-sectional survey was studied among pregnant women between January and July of 2014. A total of 132 pregnant women were recruited using a questionnaire form for sociodemographic features, the Turkish version of the International Consultation on Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-SF), for the characteristics of UI and Wagner's Quality of Life scale to assess impact on QoL. p < 0.05 was set significant. Results.Urinary incontinence was present in 56 out of 132 pregnant women (42.4%, UI-present group): mean age, 26.7 ± 5.4y(p = 0.780); median height, 160 cm (min-max: 153-176, p = 0.037); median BMI, 28.7 kg/m(2)(min-max: 22.4-50.0, p = 0.881); urine leakage occurred per week once (n = 18, 32.1%), twice or thrice (n = 8, 14.3%); per day few times (n = 14, 25%), once (n = 5, 8.9%) and always (n = 8, 14.3%) with mainly a small amount of urine leakage (n = 33, 58.9%) or a moderate (n = 4, 7.1%). There were statistically significant relationships between QoL scores and frequency of UI (p = 0.002) or amount of leakage (p = 0.002). Impact on QoL scores ranged from mild (n = 33, 58.9%), moderate (n = 4, 7.1%) to severe (n = 4, 7.1%) levels in daily life. UI impacted the daily life activities of women by making them less likely to undertake activities outside their homes (23.2%), by affecting their working performance and friendships (8.9%), their daily home activities (7.1%), their general health status (12.5%), their sexual relations (12.5%), by making them more nervous or anxious (10.7%) and by the need to wear pads or protectors (25%). ANOVA, Tukey, and Tamhane tests as the minimal important difference model yielded significant relevance between statistical analyses and clinical outcomes by using standard deviations (p = 0.001, 0.001 and 0.005 respectively). The following features favored the occurence of UI: Age (OR = 0.845, 95% CI [0.268-2.669]), being a housewife (OR = 1.800, 95% CI [0.850-3.810]), anemia (OR = 0.939, 95% CI [0.464-1.901]), parity (OR = 0.519, 95% CI [0.325-0.829]), miscarriage (OR = 1.219, 95% CI [0.588-2.825]) and living in rural areas (OR = 1.800, 95% CI [0.887-3.653]). Height (p = 0, 037), educational status (0.016), miscarriage (0.002), parity (0.006) and place of living (0.020) were significant factors. Conclusions.Many pregnant women are suffering from UI, which warrants a significant public health consideration in the region. Age, height, being a housewife or graduation level higher than primary school, living in rural, parity, miscarriage, and anemia were the factors in favor of the onset of UI. The authors plan a health promotion program in the region according to the results in order to provide information to health caregivers, especially family physicians, and to educate women about the predictors of UI and pelvic floor exercises for primary prevention and secondary relief of UI during and after pregnancy and provide some hygienic supplies to the poor in this aspect.
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.