The pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the evidence for pathologies underlying stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. METHODS: For the data sources, a structured search of the peer-reviewed literature (English language; 1960-April 2020) was conducted using predefined key terms in PubMed and Embase. Google Scholar was also searched. Peer-reviewed manuscripts that reported on anatomical, physiological or functional differences between females with signs and/or symptoms consistent with SUI and a concurrently recruited control group of continent females without any substantive urogynecological symptoms. Of 4629 publications screened, 84 met the inclusion criteria and were retained, among which 24 were included in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Selection bias was moderate to high; < 25% of studies controlled for major confounding variables for SUI (e.g., age, BMI and parity). There was a lack of standardization of methods among studies, and several measurement issues were identified. Results were synthesized qualitatively, and, where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Deficits in urethral and bladder neck structure and support, neuromuscular and mechanical function of the striated urethral sphincter (SUS) and levator ani muscles all appear to be associated with SUI. Meta-analyses showed that observed bladder neck dilation and lower functional urethral length, bladder neck support and maximum urethral closure pressures are strong characteristic signs of SUI. CONCLUSION: The pathology of SUI is multifactorial, with strong evidence pointing to bladder neck and urethral incompetence. While there is also evidence of impaired urethral support and levator ani function, standardized approaches to measurement are needed to generate higher levels of evidence.
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".