Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 940

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence and Trends of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in U.S. Women

Open access
Wu, Jennifer M., Vaughan, Camille P., Goode, Patricia S., Redden, David T., Burgio, Kathryn L., Richter, Holly E., Markland, Alayne D.·2014·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and trends of these pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women from 2005 to 2010. METHODS: We used the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey from 2005–2006, 2007–2008, and 2009–2010. A total of 7,924 nonpregnant women (aged 20 years or older) were categorized as having: urinary incontinence (UI)—moderate to severe (3 or higher on a validated UI severity index, range 0–12); fecal incontinence—at least monthly (solid, liquid, or mucus stool); and pelvic organ prolapse—seeing or feeling a bulge. Potential risk factors included age, race and ethnicity, parity, education, poverty income ratio, body mass index ([BMI] less than 25, 25-29, 30 or greater), comorbidity count, and reproductive factors. Using appropriate sampling weights, weighted χ analysis and multivariable logistic regression models with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported. RESULTS: The weighted prevalence rate of one or more pelvic floor disorders was 25.0% (95% CI 23.6–26.3), including 17.1% (95% CI 15.8–18.4) of women with moderate-to-severe UI, 9.4% (95% CI 8.6–10.2) with fecal incontinence, and 2.9% (95% CI 2.5–3.4) with prolapse. From 2005 to 2010, no significant differences were found in the prevalence rates of any individual disorder or for all disorders combined ( P >.05). After adjusting for potential confounders, higher BMI, greater parity, and hysterectomy were associated with higher odds of one or more pelvic floor disorders. CONCLUSION: Although rates of pelvic floor disorders did not change from 2005 to 2010, these conditions remain common, with one fourth of adult U.S. women reporting at least one disorder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0000000000000057

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 940

Metadata

Authors
Wu, J. M., Vaughan, C. P., Goode, P. S., Redden, D. T., Burgio, K. L., Richter, H. E., & Markland, A. D.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2014-01
Volume
123
Issue
1
Pages
141-148
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026748417
Cited by
940
References
4
FWCI
18.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prevalence and Trends of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in U.S. Women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0000000000000057
The paper
Wu, J. M., Vaughan, C. P., Goode, P. S., Redden, D. T., Burgio, K. L., Richter, H. E., & Markland, A. D. (2014). Prevalence and Trends of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in U.S. Women. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000057

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.