Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351465›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2022

Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse development: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito, Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira, Pamela Moalli, Oksana Shynlova, Jittima Manonai, Adi Yehuda Weintraub, Jan Deprest, Maria Augusta T Bortolini

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Female pelvic floor protection-Where do we have to go?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Toward Sex-Specific Biomaterials Innovation: A Perspective.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Luiz Gustavo Oliveira BritoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Rua Alexander Fleming, 101 - Cidade Universitária, Campinas, 13148-254, Brazil. lgobrito@unicamp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-4718
Glaucia Miranda Varella PereiraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Rua Alexander Fleming, 101 - Cidade Universitária, Campinas, 13148-254, Brazil.
Pamela MoalliDivision of Urogynecology & Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, VA, USA.
Oksana ShynlovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jittima ManonaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Adi Yehuda WeintraubDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bem-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Jan DeprestAcademic Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maria Augusta T BortoliniDepartment of Gynecology, Federal University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILKU Leuven · BEMagee-Womens Hospital · USMahidol University · THUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2019/26723-5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisAge is named as a risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), despite not being the primary outcome for many observational studies. Postmenopausal status is another associated factor but has many confounders. We aimed to systematically review the role of age and/or postmenopausal status in POP development.

methodsSystematic review addressing age and hormones, more specifically by postmenopausal status, from inception to March 2020 in four databases (PubMed, Embase, WOS, Cochrane Library). Quality of evidence was classified by the ROBINS-I classification for non-randomized studies. Experimental studies, animal studies, studies linking age with recurrent POP and case series were excluded. Effect estimates were collected from adjusted odds ratio plus 95% confidence intervals. Significance level was 5%. A discussion exploring mechanistic factors was also included.

resultsNineteen studies (11 cross sectional, 6 cohort and 2 case control) were included for quantitative analysis. Only two studies presented a low overall risk of bias for age; most of the domains were of moderate risk. Every additional year was responsible for a 10% increase in the risk to develop POP (OR = 1.102 [1.021-1.190]; i

conclusionAge is a risk factor for POP; postmenopausal status was not statistically associated with POP, prompting the need for further studies addressing this factor.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapsePostmenopauseCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansRisk FactorsAgeHormonesMenopausePelvic organ prolapseSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34351465
OpenAlexW3191875945

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.