Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31165221›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2019

Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rakibul M Islam, John Oldroyd, Juwel Rana, Lorena Romero, Md Nazmul Karim

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04515888 (Evaluation of the Prevalence of Pelvic Static Disorders in Women Treated for Localized Breast Cancer During Adjuvant Hormone Therapy.), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04515888 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Prevalence of Pelvic Static Disorders in Women Treated for Localized Breast Cancer During Adjuvant Hormone Therapy.

TypeobservationalSponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2020 to 2021Enrolled246ConditionsBreast CancerArmsPFDI-20 / PFIQ-7 questionnaires
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. FIGO expert opinion management of post-obstetric fistula repair incontinence for vesicovaginal fistula.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rakibul M IslamDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. rakib.islam@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0889-8658
John OldroydDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Juwel RanaEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences, EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris, France.
Lorena RomeroThe Ian Potter Library, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Md Nazmul KarimDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor disorders (PFDs), including urinary incontinence (UI), faecal incontinence (FI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), are common debilitating conditions globally, with considerable variation of prevalence reported in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). It was hypothesised that the variation could be due to both random and non-random errors. The aim was to determine the pooled prevalence estimates of PFDs among community-dwelling women in LMICs and to examine possible reasons for the variations of prevalence reported.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Maternity & Infant Care was conducted to retrieve eligible studies. A meta-analysis with a random effects model and a meta-regression were performed. The manuscript was structured using the PRISMA checklist .

resultsA total of 49 studies were included. The overall pooled prevalence of PFDs in LMICs was 25% (95% CI 22-29%). The pooled prevalence of UI, FI and POP was 30% (95% CI 25-35%), 8% (95% CI 4-11%) and 15% (95% CI 10-20%), respectively. A significant difference in the prevalence of UI was found between studies conducted in low and lower middle-income and upper middle-income countries and for FI between studies that used validated and non-validated questionnaires. Other methodological features did not show any effect on the variation of prevalence estimates of UI, FI and POP.

conclusionsPFDs affect a substantial proportion of women in LMICs. Since methodological heterogeneity was unexplained, this review suggests the need for large nationally representative population-based surveys to provide reliable estimates of the prevalence of PFDs in LMICs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDeveloping CountriesFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansIndependent LivingMiddle AgedPelvic Floor DisordersPelvic Organ ProlapsePovertyPrevalenceRegression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesUrinary IncontinenceFaecal incontinenceLow and middle-income countriesPelvic floor disordersPelvic organ prolapseUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.