Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito1, Glaucia Miranda Varella Pereira2, Pamela Moalli3, Oksana Shynlova4, Jittima Manonai5, Adi Yehuda Weintraub6, Jan Deprest7, Maria Augusta T Bortolini8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Rua Alexander Fleming, 101 - Cidade Universitária, Campinas, 13148-254, Brazil. lgobrito@unicamp.br. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Rua Alexander Fleming, 101 - Cidade Universitária, Campinas, 13148-254, Brazil. 3. Division of Urogynecology & Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, VA, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bem-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. 7. Academic Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 8. Department of Gynecology, Federal University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Age is named as a risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), despite not being the primary outcome for many observational studies. Postmenopausal status is another associated factor but has many confounders. We aimed to systematically review the role of age and/or postmenopausal status in POP development. METHODS: Systematic review addressing age and hormones, more specifically by postmenopausal status, from inception to March 2020 in four databases (PubMed, Embase, WOS, Cochrane Library). Quality of evidence was classified by the ROBINS-I classification for non-randomized studies. Experimental studies, animal studies, studies linking age with recurrent POP and case series were excluded. Effect estimates were collected from adjusted odds ratio plus 95% confidence intervals. Significance level was 5%. A discussion exploring mechanistic factors was also included. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (11 cross sectional, 6 cohort and 2 case control) were included for quantitative analysis. Only two studies presented a low overall risk of bias for age; most of the domains were of moderate risk. Every additional year was responsible for a 10% increase in the risk to develop POP (OR = 1.102 [1.021-1.190]; i2 = 80%, random analysis, p = 0.012). This trend was confirmed when age was dichotomized into a cutoff of 35 (p = 0.035) and 50 (p < 0.001) years. Although an increase in the risk for POP was noted in postmenopausal women, this did not reach statistical significance (OR = 2.080 [0.927-4.668], i2 = 0%, p = 0.076). CONCLUSION: Age is a risk factor for POP; postmenopausal status was not statistically associated with POP, prompting the need for further studies addressing this factor.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Age is named as a risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), despite not being the primary outcome for many observational studies. Postmenopausal status is another associated factor but has many confounders. We aimed to systematically review the role of age and/or postmenopausal status in POP development. METHODS: Systematic review addressing age and hormones, more specifically by postmenopausal status, from inception to March 2020 in four databases (PubMed, Embase, WOS, Cochrane Library). Quality of evidence was classified by the ROBINS-I classification for non-randomized studies. Experimental studies, animal studies, studies linking age with recurrent POP and case series were excluded. Effect estimates were collected from adjusted odds ratio plus 95% confidence intervals. Significance level was 5%. A discussion exploring mechanistic factors was also included. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (11 cross sectional, 6 cohort and 2 case control) were included for quantitative analysis. Only two studies presented a low overall risk of bias for age; most of the domains were of moderate risk. Every additional year was responsible for a 10% increase in the risk to develop POP (OR = 1.102 [1.021-1.190]; i2 = 80%, random analysis, p = 0.012). This trend was confirmed when age was dichotomized into a cutoff of 35 (p = 0.035) and 50 (p < 0.001) years. Although an increase in the risk for POP was noted in postmenopausal women, this did not reach statistical significance (OR = 2.080 [0.927-4.668], i2 = 0%, p = 0.076). CONCLUSION: Age is a risk factor for POP; postmenopausal status was not statistically associated with POP, prompting the need for further studies addressing this factor.
Authors: Lieschen H Quiroz; Dena E White; Dianna Juarez; Seyed Abbas Shobeiri Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Marijke C Ph Slieker-ten Hove; Annelies L Pool-Goudzwaard; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Regine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Curt W Burger; Mark E Vierhout Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-05-15