Parisa Samimi1, Sarah H Jones2, Ayush Giri3,4. 1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. ayush.giri@vumc.org. 4. Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. ayush.giri@vumc.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Numerous analytic observational studies assess family history as a risk factor for POP and report a wide range of associations. This review aims to systematically evaluate the role of family history of POP in relation to POP risk and its recurrence. METHODS: A review was performed of the PubMed/MEDLINE database with search criteria specifying family history, risk factors, POP, and their synonyms as title/abstract keywords, as well as MESH terms, up to March 2020. We aggregated evidence across studies with fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three articles underwent full-text review. Eighteen independent studies evaluating the relationship between family history of POP and POP risk in 3639 POP cases and 10,912 controls were eligible for meta-analysis. Four studies evaluating family history and POP recurrence in 224 recurrent cases and 400 non-recurrent cases were eligible for inclusion into another meta-analyses. A positive family history of POP is on average associated with 2.3- to 2.7-fold increased risk for POP (RE OR = 2.64; 95% CI = 2.07, 3.35) as well as a 1.4-fold increased risk for POP recurrence (FE OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.00, 2.08). Meta-analysis estimates of POP risk varied by study design, definition of family history, and model adjustment status. We found evidence that publication bias and recall bias are a possibility. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of POP is a risk factor for both POP presence and recurrence. However, reported magnitudes may be overestimates due to confounding, recall bias, and publication bias.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Numerous analytic observational studies assess family history as a risk factor for POP and report a wide range of associations. This review aims to systematically evaluate the role of family history of POP in relation to POP risk and its recurrence. METHODS: A review was performed of the PubMed/MEDLINE database with search criteria specifying family history, risk factors, POP, and their synonyms as title/abstract keywords, as well as MESH terms, up to March 2020. We aggregated evidence across studies with fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three articles underwent full-text review. Eighteen independent studies evaluating the relationship between family history of POP and POP risk in 3639 POP cases and 10,912 controls were eligible for meta-analysis. Four studies evaluating family history and POP recurrence in 224 recurrent cases and 400 non-recurrent cases were eligible for inclusion into another meta-analyses. A positive family history of POP is on average associated with 2.3- to 2.7-fold increased risk for POP (RE OR = 2.64; 95% CI = 2.07, 3.35) as well as a 1.4-fold increased risk for POP recurrence (FE OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.00, 2.08). Meta-analysis estimates of POP risk varied by study design, definition of family history, and model adjustment status. We found evidence that publication bias and recall bias are a possibility. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of POP is a risk factor for both POP presence and recurrence. However, reported magnitudes may be overestimates due to confounding, recall bias, and publication bias.
Entities:
Keywords:
Family history; Meta-analysis; Pelvic organ prolapse; Primary prolapse; Prolapse recurrence; Systematic review
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Brenda L Minor; Veida Elliott; Michelle Fernandez; Lindsay O'Neal; Laura McLeod; Giovanni Delacqua; Francesco Delacqua; Jacqueline Kirby; Stephany N Duda Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jan A Deprest; Rufus Cartwright; Hans Peter Dietz; Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito; Marianne Koch; Kristina Allen-Brady; Jittima Manonai; Adi Y Weintraub; John W F Chua; Romana Cuffolo; Felice Sorrentino; Laura Cattani; Judith Decoene; Anne-Sophie Page; Natalie Weeg; Glaucia M Varella Pereira; Marina Gabriela M C Mori da Cunha de Carvalho; Katerina Mackova; Lucie Hajkova Hympanova; Pamela Moalli; Oksana Shynlova; Marianna Alperin; Maria Augusta T Bortolini Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 1.932