Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305141›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022

Pelvic organ prolapse and anal incontinence in women: screening with a validated epidemiology survey.

Martina G Gabra, Katelyn M Tessier, Cynthia S Fok, Nissrine Nakib, Makinna C Oestreich, John Fischer

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martina G GabraDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. mgabra@arizona.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8940-6976
Katelyn M TessierBiostatistics Core, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Cynthia S FokDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Nissrine NakibDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Makinna C OestreichCollege of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
John FischerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
University of Minnesota Medical Center · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Jeffrey S. Miller · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598NIH HHS P30 CA77598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal incontinence (AI) in a Minnesota population using the Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire (EPIQ). The secondary objective of this study was to determine the association of POP and AI with parity, age, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and co-morbidities.

methodsWomen ≥ 18 years old attending the 2018 Minnesota State Fair were asked to fill out a web-based version of the EPIQ. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association of POP and AI with the variables of interest.

resultsA total of 1426 women were included in the analysis. There was a 4.9% prevalence of POP and 14.9% prevalence of AI. POP was significantly associated with parity and higher BMI (p < 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). In this cohort, POP was not associated with older age, smoking, or presence of co-morbid conditions. Anal incontinence was associated with older age (p < 0.01), smoking status (p = 0.01), and presence of co-morbid conditions (p = 0.01) but was not associated with parity or higher BMI.

conclusionPOP and AI were associated with some, but not all, of the variables tested, which differs from prior studies. In addition, the prevalence of POP and AI were different than rates reported in similar studies. This may suggest regional differences in prevalence of POP and AI.

Indexed as

Fecal IncontinencePelvic Organ ProlapseAdolescentCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesAnal incontinenceEpidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence QuestionnaireFecal incontinenceFlatal incontinencePelvic organ prolapse

Identifiers

PMID35305141
PMCPMC10069445
OpenAlexW4220696797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.