CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

Racial differences in pelvic organ prolapse

Open access
Whitcomb, Emily L., Rortveit, Guri, Brown, Jeanette S., Creasman, Jennifer M., Thom, David H., Van Den Eeden, Stephen K., Subak, Leslee L.·2009·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181bf9cc8PMC PMC2879888
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the estimated prevalence of, risk factors for, and level of bother associated with subjectively reported and objectively measured pelvic organ prolapse in a racially diverse cohort. METHODS: The Reproductive Risks for Incontinence Study at Kaiser 2 is a population-based cohort study of 2,270 middle-aged and older women. Symptomatic prolapse was self-reported, and bother was assessed on a five-point scale. In 1,137 women, prolapse was measured with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent association of prolapse and race while controlling for risk factors. RESULTS: The participants' mean (standard deviation) age was 55 (9) years, and 44% were white, 20% were African American, 18% were Asian American, and 18% were Latina or other race. Seventy-four women (3%) reported symptomatic prolapse. In multivariable analysis, the risk of symptomatic prolapse was higher in white (prevalence ratio 5.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.89-15.12) and Latina (prevalence ratio 4.89, 95% CI 1.64-14.58) compared with African-American women. Race was not associated with report of moderate to severe bother. Degree of prolapse by POP-Q stage was similar across all racial groups; however, the risk of the leading edge of prolapse at or beyond the hymen was higher in white (prevalence ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.92) compared with African-American women. CONCLUSION: Compared with African-American women, Latina and white women had four to five times higher risk of symptomatic prolapse, and white women had 1.4-fold higher risk of objective prolapse with leading edge of prolapse at or beyond the hymen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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.0b013e3181bf9cc8

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Compared with nulliparity, vaginal delivery was a significant risk factor for primary pelvic organ prolapse in 2 studies and was identified as a confirmed risk factor.

    “Compared with nulliparity, vaginal delivery was a significant risk factor in 2 studies 24,29 and could therefore be identified as a confirmed risk factor.”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results report that vaginal delivery was independently associated with two objective measures of pelvic organ prolapse: prolapse at or beyond the hymen and POP-Q stage II or greater. This is one study with two outcomes, not evidence from two studies; the passage also does not specify nulliparity as the comparator or find vaginal delivery independently associated with symptomatic prolapse. The citing authors’ designation of it as a confirmed risk factor is their inference, not a conclusion stated by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The pooled odds ratio showed a borderline significant but small effect for Black ethnicity to be protective against primary pelvic organ prolapse (n=2, pooled OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.00).

    “Of the 2 studies that could be pooled, the OR showed a borderline significant but small effect for Black ethnicity to be protective against primary POP (n¼2, pooled OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92e1.00)”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results and Discussion report lower prolapse risk among African-American women than white women for symptomatic prolapse and for objective prolapse defined as reaching the hymen. The paper reports a single cohort analysis, not a pooling of two studies, and does not give the claimed pooled OR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.92–1.00). The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior epidemiologic studies have described differences in symptomatic and objective prolapse by race and ethnicity.

    “prior epidemiologic studies have described differences in symptomatic and objective prolapse by race and ethnicity.15,16”

    From Characteristics Associated With Surgical Failure After Native Tissue Apical Prolapse Repair (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • For ethnicity, 1 study showed Black ethnicity to be protective against pelvic organ prolapse, and 3 studies showed no association.

    “For ethnicity, 1 study showed Black ethnicity to be protective against POP, 36 and 3 studies showed no association.”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

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

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Whitcomb, E. L., Rortveit, G., Brown, J. S., Creasman, J. M., Thom, D. H., Van Den Eeden, S. K., & Subak, L. L.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
ORCID
Thom, David H.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-12
Volume
114
Issue
6
Pages
1271-1277
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aog.0b013e3181bf9cc8
PMC
PMC2879888
OpenAlex
W2049056259
Semantic Scholar
77bd2e345315067c8ed5956b427c75f1008ed0e4
Cited by
166
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P50DK064538, R01DK053335, DK53335, K24DK080775)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD 41134, R01HD041134)
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, racial disparities, African American women, Hispanic women, white women, risk factors, symptom bother, POP-Q staging, middle-aged and older women
MeSH terms
California, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Racial Groups, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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