ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2024
Occupational groups and lower urinary tract symptoms: A cross-sectional analysis of women in the Boston Area Community Health Study.
Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupation History Across 20 Years and Subsequent Bladder Health Among Women in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Cohort Study.The Journal of urology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Males and Urinary Incontinence in Females in Primary Health Care in Greece.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study is to inform our hypothesis that the workplace toileting environment may impact lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); we examined the prevalence of LUTS across occupational groups in the Boston Area Community Health Survey.
methodsAt baseline, women (n = 3205) reported their occupation and frequency of 15 LUTS. Using the US Department of Labor's Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system, we categorized women into 11 standard occupational groups. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated by log-link generalized linear models, adjusting for age, race, education, fluid intake, and parity. Women classified in Office and Administrative Support were used as the reference group given their potential for fewer workplace toileting restrictions.
resultsOf the 3189 women with complete data, 68% of women reported any LUTS, ranging from 57% to 82% across the SOCs. Relative to women in Office and Administrative Support (n = 576), women in Computing, Engineering, and Science (n = 64) were more likely to report any LUTS (PR = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.0-1.4) and urinating again in <2 h (PR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.4-2.2), and women in Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, and Media (n = 477), as well as Healthcare Practitioner and Technical Occupations (n = 162), were less likely to report perceived frequent daytime urination (PR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.9 and PR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4-0.9, respectively).
conclusionsOur cross-sectional findings suggest that urination frequency varies across understudied occupational groups with various workplace toileting environments. Future studies should examine this relationship prospectively to inform the influence of workplace toileting environments on urination frequency, as well as the development and/or worsening of LUTS.
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.