Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update a previously published systematic review and perform a meta-analysis on the risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched. We searched from July 1, 2014 until July 5, 2021. The previous search was from inception until August 4, 2014. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and cross-sectional and cohort studies conducted in the Western developed countries that reported on multivariable analysis of risk factors for primary prolapse or prolapse recurrence were included. The definition of prolapse was based on anatomic references, and prolapse recurrence was defined as anatomic recurrence after native tissue repair. Studies on prolapse recurrence with a median follow-up of ≥1 year after surgery were included. METHODS: Quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data from the previous review and this review were combined into forest plots, and meta-analyses were performed where possible. If the data could not be pooled, "confirmed risk factors" were identified if ≥2 studies reported a significant association in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: After screening, 14 additional studies were selected-8 on the risk factors for primary prolapse and 6 on prolapse recurrence. Combined with the results from the previous review, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing the data of 47,429 women. Not all studies could be pooled because of heterogeneity. Meta-analyses showed that birthweight (n=3, odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06), age (n=3, odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.47), body mass index (n=2, odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.62), and levator defect (n=2, odds ratio, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-6.18) are statistically significant risk factors, and cesarean delivery (n=2, pooled odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.20) and smoking (n=3, odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.75) are protective factors for primary prolapse. Parity, vaginal delivery, and levator hiatal area are identified as "confirmed risk factors." For prolapse recurrence, preoperative prolapse stage (n=5, odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-3.73) and age (n=2, odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.08) are statistically significant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Vaginal delivery, parity, birthweight, age, body mass index, levator defect, and levator hiatal area are risk factors, and cesarean delivery and smoking are protective factors for primary prolapse. Preoperative prolapse stage and younger age are risk factors for prolapse recurrence after native tissue surgery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it