OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe trends for pelvic floor disorder (PFD)-related ambulatory visits. STUDY DESIGN: Data were derived from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey. PFD-related visits were based on ICD-9 codes. We collapsed 12 survey years into 3 study periods (1995-1998, 1999-2002, 2003-2006) to evaluate numbers, rates, and trends for PFD-related visits. RESULTS: The average annual number of PFD-related visits was 3.9 million (95% confidence interval, 3.1-4.7). The annual rate of PFD-related visits per 1000 women was 35.2% in 1995-1998, 40.6% in 1999-2002, and 36.3% in 2003-2006. PFD visits represent 0.9% of all ambulatory visits for adult women in the United States. Women > or =60 years old had higher rates of PFD-related visits compared with women <60 years old. CONCLUSION: The annual number of PFD-related visits is significant and represents 0.9% of all ambulatory visits made by adult women in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe trends for pelvic floor disorder (PFD)-related ambulatory visits. STUDY DESIGN: Data were derived from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey. PFD-related visits were based on ICD-9 codes. We collapsed 12 survey years into 3 study periods (1995-1998, 1999-2002, 2003-2006) to evaluate numbers, rates, and trends for PFD-related visits. RESULTS: The average annual number of PFD-related visits was 3.9 million (95% confidence interval, 3.1-4.7). The annual rate of PFD-related visits per 1000 women was 35.2% in 1995-1998, 40.6% in 1999-2002, and 36.3% in 2003-2006. PFD visits represent 0.9% of all ambulatory visits for adult women in the United States. Women > or =60 years old had higher rates of PFD-related visits compared with women <60 years old. CONCLUSION: The annual number of PFD-related visits is significant and represents 0.9% of all ambulatory visits made by adult women in the United States.
Authors: Dee E Fenner; Elisa R Trowbridge; Divya A Patel; Divya L Patel; Nancy H Fultz; Janis M Miller; Denise Howard; John O L DeLancey Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christine L Gray Sears; Johnnie Wright; Jennie O'Brien; James R Jezior; Sandra L Hernandez; Todd S Albright; Sohail Siddique; John R Fischer Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nilay D Shah; Denesh K Chitkara; G Richard Locke; Patrick D Meek; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sue Ross; Hilary Fast; Stephanie Garies; Deb Slade; Dave Jackson; Meghan Doraty; Rebecca Miyagishima; Boglarka Soos; Matt Taylor; Tyler Williamson; Neil Drummond Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-05-28
Authors: Vivian W Sung; Diane Borello-France; Gena Dunivan; Marie Gantz; Emily S Lukacz; Pamela Moalli; Diane K Newman; Holly E Richter; Beri Ridgeway; Ariana L Smith; Alison C Weidner; Susan Meikle Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 2.894