Cited by 158Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsUterine Myomas and Treatments

Natural history of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women

Bradley, Catherine S., Zimmerman, M Bridget, Qi, Yingwei, Nygaard, Ingrid E.·2007·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the natural history of pelvic organ prolapse and risk factors for changes in vaginal descent in older women. METHODS: This 4-year prospective observational study included 259 postmenopausal women with a uterus enrolled at one Women's Health Initiative clinical site who completed at least two annual pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) examinations. We calculated 1-year and 3-year incidence and resolution risks for prolapse (defined as maximal vaginal descent to or beyond the hymen) and estimated progression and regression rates (1 cm or greater and 2 cm or greater changes in maximal vaginal descent) and risk factors. RESULTS: Mean age was 68.1+/-5.5 years, and median vaginal parity was 4. Seventy-three (28%) women had four exams, 128 (49%) had three exams, and 58 (22%) had two exams. Prolapse waxed and waned yearly in individual women. Overall 1-year and 3-year prolapse incidences were 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-33%) and 40% (95% CI 26-56%); 1-year and 3-year prolapse resolution risks were 21% (95% CI 11-33%) and 19% (95% CI 7-39%). Rates of any change in maximal vaginal descent over time varied depending on baseline measurements. Over 3 years, the maximal vaginal descent increased by at least 2 cm in 11.0% (95% CI 4.9-20.5%) of the women and decreased by at least 2 cm in 2.7% (95% CI 0.3-9.5%). Increasing body mass index and grand multiparity increased the risk for vaginal descent progression. CONCLUSION: Prolapse progresses and regresses in older women, although rates of vaginal descent progression are slightly greater than regression overall. Obesity is a risk factor for progression in vaginal descent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.aog.0000255977.91296.5d

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bradley, C. S., Zimmerman, M. B., Qi, Y., & Nygaard, I. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2007-04
Volume
109
Issue
4
Pages
848-854
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984902625
Cited by
158
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (The University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7k24hd042469-05)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD047654, R01 HD41131, K24 HD42469)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, postmenopausal women, natural history (disease), POP-Q, risk factors, body mass index, obesity, grand multiparity, parity, uterine prolapse
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Parity, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Uterine Prolapse, Body Mass Index, Odds Ratio, Postmenopause

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