Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33787952›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021

Obstetric risk factors for anorectal dysfunction after delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laura Cattani, Liesbeth Neefs, Jan Y Verbakel, Jan Bosteels, Jan Deprest

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Risk factors for opioid-induced constipation in cancer patients: a single-institution, retrospective analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura CattaniDepartment Development and Regeneration, Cluster Urogenital Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5232-3619
Liesbeth NeefsDepartment Development and Regeneration, Cluster Urogenital Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan Y VerbakelEPI-Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan BosteelsDepartment Development and Regeneration, Cluster Urogenital Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan DeprestDepartment Development and Regeneration, Cluster Urogenital Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. jan.deprest@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-945X
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEImelda Hospital · BEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPregnancy and childbirth are considered risk factors for pelvic floor dysfunction, including anorectal dysfunction. We aimed to assess the effect of obstetric events on anal incontinence and constipation after delivery.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. We included studies in women after childbirth examining the association between obstetric events and anorectal dysfunction assessed through validated questionnaires. We selected eligible studies and clustered the data according to the type of dysfunction, obstetric event and interval from delivery. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and we performed a random-effects meta-analysis and reported the results as odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using I

resultsAnal sphincter injury (OR: 2.44 [1.92-3.09]) and operative delivery were risk factors for anal incontinence (forceps-OR :1.35 [1.12-1.63]; vacuum-OR: 1.17 [1.04-1.31]). Spontaneous vaginal delivery increased the risk of anal incontinence compared with caesarean section (OR: 1.27 [1.07-1.50]). Maternal obesity (OR:1.48 [1.28-1.72]) and advanced maternal age (OR: 1.56 [1.30-1.88]) were risk factors for anal incontinence. The evidence on incontinence is of low certainty owing to the observational nature of the studies. No evidence was retrieved regarding constipation after delivery because of a lack of standardised validated assessment tools.

conclusionsBesides anal sphincter injury, forceps delivery, maternal obesity and advanced age were associated with higher odds of anal incontinence, whereas caesarean section is protective. We could not identify obstetric risk factors for postpartum constipation, as few prospective studies addressed this question and none used a standardised validated questionnaire.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionFecal IncontinenceAnal CanalDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesRisk FactorsAnal incontinenceChildbirthConstipationDeliveryFaecal incontinenceObstructive defecation

Identifiers

PMID33787952
OpenAlexW3139659252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.