Hadi Mostafaei1,2,3, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani1,2, Sakineh Hajebrahimi1,2,4,5, Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr1,2, Morteza Ghojazadeh1,2, Rahmi Onur6, Riyad T Al Mousa7, Matthias Oelke8. 1. Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 2. Iranian Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Centre, Joanna Briggs Institute Affiliated Group, Tabriz, Iran. 3. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Urology, Imam Reza Teaching Hospital, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. 5. ICS Developing World Committee, Bristol, UK. 6. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Department of Urology, King Fahd Specialist Hospital-Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 8. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: The prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) in the developing world varies widely. Factors influencing prevalence rates are a key area of interest, and knowledge of these would provide appropriate planning for preventive primary and secondary health care programs. The objective of this report was to synthesize the best available evidence to determine UI prevalence rates in adult women in a population setting. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was employed to find published and unpublished studies. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We used the standardized Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics, Assessment, and Review Instrument to appraise the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 54 studies with 138,722 women aged 10 to 90 years were included in this meta-analysis. Prevalence of UI ranged from 2.8% in Nigeria to 57.7% in Iran. The total prevalence of UI was 25.7% (95% CI: 22.3-29.5) and the prevalence rates for stress, urgency, and mixed UI were 12.6% (95% CI: 10.3-15.4), 5.3% (95% CI: 3.4-8.3), and 9.1% (95% CI: 7.0-11.8), respectively. When we excluded the elderly population, UI prevalence only slightly changed (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.6-30.2). Prevalence rates varied considerably during different recall periods, ranging from 15.6% for UI during the last 12 months to 41.2% for UI during the last 3 months. However, the study quality and use of validated vs nonvalidated questionnaires only had a minor impact on the prevalence rates. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence, methodology, and definition of UI vary widely. A large-scale multinational study with a homogeneous methodology is necessary to correctly calculate and compare the prevalence rates to improve health policies in the developing world.
AIMS: The prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) in the developing world varies widely. Factors influencing prevalence rates are a key area of interest, and knowledge of these would provide appropriate planning for preventive primary and secondary health care programs. The objective of this report was to synthesize the best available evidence to determine UI prevalence rates in adult women in a population setting. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was employed to find published and unpublished studies. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We used the standardized Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics, Assessment, and Review Instrument to appraise the included studies. RESULTS: In total, 54 studies with 138,722 women aged 10 to 90 years were included in this meta-analysis. Prevalence of UI ranged from 2.8% in Nigeria to 57.7% in Iran. The total prevalence of UI was 25.7% (95% CI: 22.3-29.5) and the prevalence rates for stress, urgency, and mixed UI were 12.6% (95% CI: 10.3-15.4), 5.3% (95% CI: 3.4-8.3), and 9.1% (95% CI: 7.0-11.8), respectively. When we excluded the elderly population, UI prevalence only slightly changed (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.6-30.2). Prevalence rates varied considerably during different recall periods, ranging from 15.6% for UI during the last 12 months to 41.2% for UI during the last 3 months. However, the study quality and use of validated vs nonvalidated questionnaires only had a minor impact on the prevalence rates. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence, methodology, and definition of UI vary widely. A large-scale multinational study with a homogeneous methodology is necessary to correctly calculate and compare the prevalence rates to improve health policies in the developing world.
Authors: Daniela Caramazza; Giuseppe Campagna; Francesca Moro; Lorenzo Vacca; Monia Marturano; Sara Pizzacalla; Ilaria Nausica Trivellizzi; Giovanni Panico; Giovanni Scambia; Alfredo Ercoli; Antonia Carla Testa Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Raha Maroyi; Nabintu Mwambali; Madeline K Moureau; Laura E Keyser; Jessica L McKinney; Heidi W Brown; Denis M Mukwege Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Hadi Mostafaei; Sandra Jilch; Greta Lisa Carlin; Keiichiro Mori; Fahad Quhal; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Victor M Schuettfort; Abdulmajeed Aydh; Reza Sari Motlagh; Claus G Roehrborn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Sakineh Hajebrahimi Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 14.432