Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of urinary incontinence among women and analysis of potential risk factors in Germany and Denmark

Schreiber Pedersen, Louise, Lose, Gunnar, Høybye, Mette Terp, Elsner, Susanne, Waldmann, Annika, Rudnicki, Martin·2017·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Introduction: Urinary incontinence ( UI ) is a prevalent condition that interferes with women's health‐related quality of life. Prevalence rates from earlier studies are wide‐ranging, due to heterogeneity in methodology, definition of UI and the populations included. We aimed to determine the prevalence of UI and associated risk factors in Germany and Denmark using the same methodology, definition and population. Material and methods: A postal survey was conducted in two regions in Germany and Denmark, including 8000 women aged 18+ years. UI was defined as any complaint of involuntary loss of urine. The questionnaire contained socio‐demographic questions and the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form ( ICIQ ‐ UI SF ). Results: The response rate in Germany and Denmark was 46.2 and 66.6% ( p < 0.001) and the prevalence rate of UI was 48.3 and 46.4% ( p = 0.188), respectively. Stress urinary incontinence dominated among younger women, and urgency urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence among women 80+ years in Germany and Denmark, respectively. The subgroup of women with body mass index ( BMI ) ≥35 had the highest prevalence of UI (67.3%). The subgroup of women with BMI <35 were more likely to have stress urinary incontinence, and the subgroup of women with BMI ≥35 were more likely to have mixed urinary incontinence. UI was significantly associated with age as with BMI , vaginal delivery, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and having at least one co‐morbidity. Conclusions: Prevalence rates in the two regions in Germany and Denmark were similar, despite significantly different response rates. This difference may reflect various attitudes towards answering a questionnaire, but the response rate on questions concerning UI seemed consistent.

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 · 10.1111/aogs.13149

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Schreiber Pedersen, L., Lose, G., Høybye, M. T., Elsner, S., Waldmann, A., & Rudnicki, M.
Venue
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-20
Volume
96
Issue
8
Pages
939-948
ISSN
  • 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0412
OpenAlex
W2605719375
Cited by
186
References
1
FWCI
9.97
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

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.