Estimated burden, and associated factors of Urinary Incontinence among Sub-Saharan African women aged 15–100 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital and community based-studies had been conducted for Urinary Incontinence (UI) in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) countries. A significant limitation of these studies is likely under-estimation of the burden of UI in SSA. It is therefore, imperative that a well-structured systematic review and meta-analytical models in SSA are required to accurately and reliably estimate the burden of UI. Medline/PubMed, Google Scholar, Africa Journal Online (AJOL) were searched to identified data on burden of UI studies in SSA. Two independent authors performed the initial screening of studies based on the details found in their titles and abstracts. The quality of the retrieved studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment instrument. The pooled burden of UI was calculated using a weighted inverse variance random-effects model. A sub-group and meta-regression analyses were performed. Publication bias was checked by the funnel plot and Egger's test. Of the 25 studies included, 14 were hospital-based, 10 community- based, and 1 university-based studies involving an overall 17863 participants from SSA. The systematic review showed that the prevalence of UI ranged from 0.6% in Sierra Leone to 42.1% in Tanzania. The estimated pooled burden of UI across all studies was 21% [95% CI: 16%-26%, I2 = 91.01%]. The estimated pooled prevalence of stress UI was 52% [95% CI: 42%-62%], urgency UI 21% [95% CI: 15%-26%], and mixed UI 27% [95% CI: 20%-35%]. The common significant independent factors were; parity, constipation, overweight/obese, vaginal delivery, chronic cough, gestational age, and aging. One out of every five women in SSA suffers from UI. Parity, constipation, overweight/obesity, vaginal delivery, chronic cough, gestational age, and age were the most important risk variables. As a result, interventions aimed at reducing the burden of UI in SSA women aged 15 to 100 years old in the context of identified determinants could have significant public health implications.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".