ArticleBMC public health2025
Time trends in the incidence of pelvic organ prolapse across the BRICS: an age-period-cohort analysis for the GBD 2019.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Global, Regional, and National Burden and Trends of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Among Women of Childbearing Age and Projected Trends to 2041 Using ARIMA Models: A Systematic Study Based on the GBD from 1990 to 2021.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse in postpartum women: a retrospective cross-sectional study in Southwest China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs a female-specific health problem, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) causes serious damage to the physical and psychological health of numerous women, which poses a significant challenge to women's health care worldwide, especially in developing countries. We conducted an in-depth analysis of trends in the incidence of POP over the past 30 years globally and in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS countries). MATERIALS AND
methodsData on the incidence of POP were obtained by location (5 countries), age (15-94 years old), year (1990-2019) from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Age-period-cohort model was used to estimate the net drift, local drift, age effects, period and cohort effects between 1990 and 2019.
resultsThe all-age incidence rate for POP in 2019 increased from 283.28/100,000 (95% UI: 229.97, 340.34) in China to 444.81/100,000 (369.92, 526.15) in Brazil, whereas the age-standardized incidence rate in 2019 was highest in India 400.06/100,000 (325.98, 476.91) and lowest in China 187.74/100,000 (154.21, 224.43). There was an emerging transition of incidences from the young population (15-39 years) to the middle and older population (≥ 40 years) in Brazil and India. The current findings reflect the different age, period, and cohort effects on POP incidence trends at global and BRICS levels.
conclusionsThe BRICS countries have made different progress in reducing the prevalence of POP. We fully recognize the diversity of internal environments in the BRICS countries and suggest an incremental approach to advancing POP prevention matters based on possible policy-driven human and financial resources in a given setting.
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.