Pelvic organ prolapse and overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In this review we try to shed light on the following questions: *How frequently are symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB) and is detrusor overactivity (DO) present in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and is there a difference from women without POP? *Does the presence of OAB symptoms depend on the prolapsed compartment and/or stage of the prolapse? *What is the possible pathophysiology of OAB in POP? *Do OAB symptoms and DO change after conservative or surgical treatment of POP? METHODS: We searched on Medline and Embase for relevant studies. We only included studies in which actual data about OAB symptoms were available. All data for prolapse surgery were without the results of concomitant stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery. RESULTS: Community- and hospital-based studies showed that the prevalence of OAB symptoms was greater in patients with POP than without POP. No evidence was found for a relationship between the compartment or stage of the prolapse and the presence of OAB symptoms. All treatments for POP (surgery, pessaries) resulted in an improvement in OAB symptoms. It is unclear what predicts whether OAB symptoms disappear or not. When there is concomitant DO and POP, following POP surgery DO disappear in a proportion of the patients. Bladder outlet obstruction is likely to be the most important mechanism by which POP induces OAB symptoms and DO signs. However, several other mechanisms might also play a role. CONCLUSIONS: There are strong indications that there is a causal relationship between OAB and POP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".