Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Urinary incontinence (UI) and low quality of life (QoL) are two common conditions. Some recent literature proposed that these two entities can be associated. However, no attempt was made to collate this literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data to estimate the strength of the association between UI and QoL. Methods An electronic search of major databases up to 18th April 2020 was carried out. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional and case–control studies comparing mean values in QoL between patients with UI and controls was performed, reporting random-effects standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 . Results Out of 8279 articles initially screened, 23 were finally included for a total of 24,983 participants, mainly women. The mean age was ≥ 50 years in 12/23 studies. UI was significantly associated with poor QoL as assessed by the short-form 36 (SF-36) total score ( n = 6 studies; UI: 473 vs. 2971 controls; SMD = − 0.89; 95% CI − 1.3 to − 0.42; I 2 = 93.5) and by the sub-scales of SF-36 and 5/8 of the domains included in the SF-36. Similar results were found using other QoL tools. The risk of bias of the studies included was generally high. Conclusions UI is associated with a poor QoL, with a strong level of certainty. This work, however, mainly based on cross-sectional and case–control studies, highlights the necessity of future longitudinal studies for better understanding the importance of UI on QoL.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Damiano Pizzol
Jacopo Demurtas
Stefano Celotto
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
Zhongguo shiyong neike zazhi
University of Calgary
National Research Council
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Pizzol et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69dd669480eea7d3f699c7bb — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01712-y