ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Association of race with anal incontinence in parous women.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo investigate the relationship between race and anal incontinence (AI). Our hypotheses were (a) AI symptoms are similar between white and black women and (b) asymptomatic black and white women are equally likely to develop AI over one year of prospective observation.
methodsParous women enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study were assessed for AI symptoms annually using Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire. An AI score > 0 indicated any bother from AI; a score > 22.8 indicated clinically significant AI. We compared the odds of AI scores >0 at the visit level between white vs black women with logistic regression models using generalized estimating equations. We also estimated the odds of new AI symptoms at time T + 1(one year later) among women free of AI symptoms at time T comparing white vs black women. In the latter analysis, we considered new AI symptoms to be represented by scores above 11.4. Covariates included in the adjusted models were: mode of delivery, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, body mass index, age at the first delivery, and parity at enrollment.
resultsAmong 1256 participants, 189 (15.0%) were black. AI score = 0 was observed at 74.2% (= 5122/6902) person-visits. The adjusted odds ratio of AI score > 0 was 1.83 (95% CI 1.24, 2.70) for white vs black women. Across 4364 visit pairs with AI score = 0 at time T, 203 (4.7%) had AI score > 11.4 at visit T + 1 and white race significantly increased the odds of developing symptoms at time T + 1 (adjusted OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.28, 3.98).
conclusionsIn an analysis that controlled for mode of delivery, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, obesity, age at first delivery, and parity, white race was significantly associated with AI symptoms at any point in time as well as to the development of AI over one year of observation.
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.