The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse and associated factors in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects millions of women globally, with resource-limited countries, such as Ethiopia, carrying the highest burden. Previously, the prevalence of POP was estimated using seven studies. However, this study lacks generalization because of the limited number of studies and low geographical representation. In total, 12 additional primary studies were conducted after this review, and their reported prevalence was significantly variable across the studies. In addition, different new factors were reported in the primary studies. Therefore, this study aimed to update the pooled prevalence of POP and its associated factors in Ethiopia. Methods This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Articles that were published between 2000 and 2023 were searched using the African Journal of Online, ScienceDirect, DOAJ, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool. The data were extracted using Microsoft Excel and analyzed by Stata version 11. A random effect model was used to investigate the pooled prevalence of POP and its associated factors. The I2test and Egger's regression test were used to detect the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias across studies, respectively. Result A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria and represented the data of 14,575 women. The pooled prevalence of POP was found to be 22.70%. History of home delivery (pooled odds ratio (OR) =2.93, 95% CI =1.46, 5.91), prolonged labor (OR = 4.63, 95% CI = 2.56, 8.38), history of perineal tear (OR = 4.83, 95% CI = 2.31, 10.11), instrumental delivery (OR =3.70, 95% CI =2.01, 6.81), grand multipara (OR = 5.42, 95% CI = 4.06, 7.23), family history of POP (OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.07, 5.25), and carrying heavy objects (OR = 3.23, 95% CI = 2.22, 4.70) were significantly associated with POP. Conclusion The pooled prevalence of POP was high in Ethiopia. The Ministry of Health and clinicians should emphasize counseling on modifiable risk factors and develop further prevention strategies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| 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".