ArticleScientific reports2025
Family history and acquired risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse: a case-control study in Japan.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Current Perspectives and Decision-Making Considerations for Surgical Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Predictive Factors of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and the Quality of Life Among Jordanian Women: A Case-Control Study.International journal of women's health · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This case-control study aimed to investigate the association between family history of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and its development, combined with known clinical risk factors, in Japanese women. Participants included patients aged ≥ 40 years with and without POP. Self-reported questionnaires assessed delivery methods, disease history, and family history until third-degree relatives. Overall, 305 patients with POP and 338 healthy controls were included. After age-matching, a good balance was achieved between the groups (n = 129 each), with a mean age of 67.7 ± 8.3 years in the POP group and 67.4 ± 8.3 years in the control group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the POP group had a significantly higher odds ratio for family history of POP (3.06 [1.09-8.56]; p = 0.03), body mass index (BMI) (1.12 [1.03-1.22]; p = 0.01), and parity (1.51 [1.20-1.89]; p = 0.001). An area under the curve of 0.693 was achieved with a family history of POP, BMI ≥ 23.1 kg/m
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.