ArticleHealth science reports2026
Global Burden of Pelvic Organ Prolapse, 1990-2021: An Ecological Study and Mendelian Randomization Analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. 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.
- Management of Major Non-mesh Complications After Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Global Burden of Pelvic Organ Prolapse, 1990-2021: An Ecological Study and Mendelian Randomization Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) represents a major global health challenge for women. This study systematically analyzed the global disease burden of POP and associated risk factors from 1990 to 2021, including projections of future trends. Methods: The data were derived from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 database and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Additionally, we combined the age-period-cohort (APC) model with the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to analyze the driving factors and project future disease burden trends. Furthermore, we performed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to assess whether genetic liability to selected traits is associated with POP. Results: From 1990 to 2021, the global crude incidence, prevalence, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of POP increased by 66.2%, 68.7%, and 67.5%, respectively. However, in 2021, the global age-standardized DALY rate (ASDR) of POP was 18.4% lower than in 1990. Notably, regions with a low sociodemographic index exhibited a statistically significant elevation in disease burden. Furthermore, observational analyzes and MR suggest a probable causal contribution of obesity and related traits to POP risk, while higher genetically proxied educational attainment appears protective. According to the ARIMA model, global POP cases are projected to reach 148 million by 2036, while the age-standardized prevalence rate (ASPR) and ASDR are expected to decline further by 10.8% and 18.4%, respectively. Conclusion: With aging and socioeconomic disparities aggravating the POP burden, efforts should prioritize global surveillance, optimized resource allocation, and targeted prevention for high‑risk groups.
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.