The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Urinary incontinence in older women: Who is at risk?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of and identify factors associated with urinary incontinence in older women. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involved 7949 community-dwelling women, with a mean (+/- standard deviation) age of 76.9 +/- 5.0 years, recruited from population-based listings to participate in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. The prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence during the previous 12 months were assessed by questionnaire. Factors potentially associated with urinary incontinence were assessed by questionnaire, interview, and physical examination. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent associations between these factors and the primary outcome of daily incontinence. RESULTS: Forty-one percent (3285) of the women reported urinary incontinence, with 14% (1130) reporting daily incontinence. In multivariate analysis, the prevalence of daily urinary incontinence increased significantly with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 per 5 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.5), prior hysterectomy (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.6), higher body mass index (OR 1.6 per 5 units, 95% CI 1.4-1.7), history of stroke (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7), diabetes (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-1.9), and poor overall health (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.1). Faster gait speed (OR 0.8 per 0.2 units, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) was associated with decreased incontinence. CONCLUSION: Urinary incontinence is a common problem in older women, more common than most chronic medical conditions. Of the associated factors that are preventable or modifiable, obesity and hysterectomy may have the greatest impact on the prevalence of daily incontinence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Garvey, W. T., Mechanick, J. I., Brett, E. M., Garber, A. J., Hurley, D. L., Jastreboff, A. M., Nadolsky, K., Pessah-Pollack, R., & Plodkowski, R. (2016) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep161365.gl · Cited by 1,914
Kirkman, M. S., Briscoe, V. J., Clark, N., Florez, H., Haas, L. B., Halter, J. B., Huang, E. S., Korytkowski, M. T., Munshi, M. N., Odegard, P. S., et al. (2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-1801 · Cited by 1,274
Villareal, D. T., Apovian, C. M., Kushner, R. F., & Klein, S. (2005) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/82.5.923 · Cited by 880
Guidelines for improving the care of the older person with diabetes mellitus
California Healthcare Foundation/American Geriatrics Society, C. (2003) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.51.5s.1.x · Cited by 651
Villareal, D. T., Apovian, C. M., Kushner, R. F., & Klein, S. (2005) · Obesity Research · doi:10.1038/oby.2005.228 · Cited by 579
Metadata
- Authors
- BROWN, J., SEELEY, D., FONG, J., BLACK, D., ENSRUD, K., & GRADY, D.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 5 Pt 1
- Pages
- 715-721
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023359850
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Urinary incontinence in older women: Who is at risk? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0029-7844(96)00013-0
- The paper
- BROWN, J., SEELEY, D., FONG, J., BLACK, D., ENSRUD, K., & GRADY, D. (1996). Urinary incontinence in older women: Who is at risk? Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(96)00013-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.