Risk factors of stress urinary incontinence in pelvic organ prolapse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) commonly coexist as global problems that affect the quality of life of millions of women. The study aimed to identify the risk factors of stress urinary incontinence in pelvic organ prolapse patients. Main body A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus based on the PRISMA flowchart. The quality of the study was assessed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and data were collected on a modified table from The Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. Seven hundred forty studies were found that matched the keywords. After the screening, 16 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 47.615 participants with pelvic organ prolapse. A total of 27 risk factors were found in this review. History of hysterectomy (OR = 2.01; 95% CI 1.22–3.33; p = 0.007), obesity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.02–1.29; p = 0.02), and diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.06–3.23; p = 0.03) were shown to be risk factor of stress urinary incontinence in pelvic organ prolapse patients. Conclusions History of hysterectomy, obesity, and diabetes mellitus were found to be the risk factors of stress urinary incontinence in pelvic organ prolapse patients.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".