ArticleBMC public health2025
Sitting vs. squatting: a scoping review of toilet postures and associated health outcomes.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The mechanisms and management of fecal incontinence in geriatric neurological diseases.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveThe comparison between squatting and sitting toilets involves complex health, ergonomic, and design considerations. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on the digestive, musculoskeletal, and ergonomic health outcomes associated with squatting and sitting toilet postures, while also exploring related health impacts (e.g., urinary and cardiovascular) and design considerations.
methodsThis scoping review was conducted on January 1, 2024, searching Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were defined using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) framework. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, supplemented by hand searches in Google Scholar and Science Direct, and snowballing. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists.
resultsForty-two studies were analyzed. Squatting may reduce digestive strain and enhance bowel evacuation, potentially benefiting constipation, while sitting toilets may increase bowel-related issues but provide comfort for specific populations, such as older adults. Musculoskeletal outcomes vary, with squatting linked to strain in vulnerable groups and sitting toilets reducing joint stress when ergonomically designed. Ergonomic innovations, such as adjustable seats and non-slip surfaces, show promise in improving comfort and minimizing health risks. Methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and inadequate control of confounders, preclude definitive conclusions.
conclusionSquatting and sitting toilet postures differentially influence digestive health, musculoskeletal strain, and sanitation, shaped by individual needs, cultural practices, and environmental factors. Practical implications include developing adjustable, hygiene-focused, culturally sensitive toilet designs to enhance public health. Longitudinal studies with robust methodologies are needed to clarify chronic health impacts and optimize user-centered toilet design solutions.
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.