Cited by 197Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse at Midlife, Quality of Life, and Risk Factors

Open access
Fritel, Xavier, Varnoux, Noëlle, Zins, Marie, Breart, Gérard, Ringa, Virginie·2009·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate quality of life, prevalence, and risk factors associated with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among middle-aged women. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was mailed to 3,114 women aged 50-61 years in the GAZEL cohort; 2,640 (85%) returned it. Symptomatic POP was defined by feeling a bulge from the vagina (sometimes, often, or all the time compared with never or rarely). Quality of life was determined with the Nottingham Health Profile questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between frequency of POP symptoms and the quality-of-life score. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of risk factors on past or present symptomatic POP (current symptoms or previous surgery for POP). RESULTS: The prevalence of symptomatic POP was 3.6% (96 of 2,640) and that of surgery for POP was 2.7% (70 of 2,640). Pelvic organ prolapse symptoms were associated with difficulty defecating, lower abdominal pain, and difficulty voiding. The frequency of POP symptoms was associated with a poorer quality-of-life score in each Nottingham Health Profile domain (physical mobility, pain, emotional reaction, social isolation, energy, and sleep). Even when we took general characteristics, medical history, and lifestyle associated with quality of life into account, the global Nottingham Health Profile score was significantly impaired by POP symptoms. Factors significantly associated with past or present symptomatic POP were high body mass index and the number of vaginal deliveries. CONCLUSION: In our population of women in their 50s, POP symptoms are associated with impaired quality of life, and the number of vaginal deliveries is a risk factor for past or present symptomatic POP.

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.0b013e3181985312

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The recurrence rate of POP after reconstructive surgery can be as high as 58%.

    “According to the literature, the recurrence rate of POP after reconstructive surgery can be as high as 58% (Whiteside et al. 2004, Delancey et al. 2008, Fritel et al. 2009, Friedman et al. 2018).”

    From Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Fritel et al. 2009

    The Results report that 70 women had previously undergone POP surgery, but do not give a postoperative recurrence rate. Searches for “58%” and for recurrence after reconstructive surgery found no passage addressing the claimed rate. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lazarevski MB. Pelvic morpho-topography and pathogenis of genital prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 1999;18:332-333.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fritel, X., Varnoux, N., Zins, M., Breart, G., & Ringa, V.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2009-03
Volume
113
Issue
3
Pages
609-616
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144903222
Cited by
197
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, middle-aged women, quality of life, risk factors, prevalence, body mass index, vaginal delivery, Nottingham Health Profile, GAZEL cohort, defecation difficulty, voiding difficulty, abdominal pain
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, France, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Uterine Prolapse, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Delivery, Obstetric

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