| Title |
Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tineke F. M. Vergeldt, Mirjam Weemhoff, Joanna IntHout, Kirsten B. Kluivers |
| Abstract |
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition with multifactorial etiology. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview of literature on risk factors for POP and POP recurrence. PubMed and Embase were searched with "pelvic organ prolapse" combined with "recurrence" and combined with "risk factors," with Medical Subject Headings and Thesaurus terms and text words variations until 4 August 2014, without language or publication date restrictions. Only cohort or cross-sectional studies carried out in western developed countries containing multivariate analyses and with a definition of POP based on anatomical references were included. POP recurrence had to be defined as anatomical recurrence after native tissue repair without mesh. Follow-up after surgery should have been at least 1 year. Articles were excluded if POP was not a separate entity or if it was unclear whether the outcome was primary POP or recurrence. PubMed and Embase revealed 2,988 and 4,449 articles respectively. After preselection, 534 articles were independently evaluated by two researchers, of which 15 met the selection criteria. In 10 articles on primary POP, 30 risk factors were investigated. Parity, vaginal delivery, age, and body mass index (BMI) were significantly associated in at least two articles. In 5 articles on POP recurrence, 29 risk factors were investigated. Only preoperative stage was significantly associated in at least two articles. Parity, vaginal delivery, age, and BMI are risk factors for POP and preoperative stage is a risk factor for POP recurrence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 446 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 446 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 63 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 7% |
| Researcher | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 74 | 17% |
| Unknown | 169 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 179 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 2% |
| Engineering | 8 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 5% |
| Unknown | 180 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,243,993
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#130
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,094
of 279,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.