Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 497

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Variation in Estimates of Urinary Incontinence Prevalence in the Community: Effects of Differences in Definition, Population Characteristics, and Study Type

Thom, David·1998·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Prevalence estimates for urinary incontinence among community‐dwelling adults vary from 2 to 55%. A review of the literature was undertaken to investigate the degree to which differences in definitions of incontinence, age, and gender of the populations studied, response rates, measurement techniques, or location could explain differences in reported prevalences. DESIGN: A literature search was conducted to locate all studies published in English reporting the prevalence of urinary incontinence in a population‐based sample of adults. MEASUREMENT: Information was abstracted for study size, response rate, type of survey, definition of urinary incontinence, and prevalence of incontinence by age group and gender. Prevalence by type of incontinence was also abstracted where available. Stratification was used to obtain prevalence estimates specific for age, gender, and frequency of incontinence. Data were examined for associations between prevalence and survey type, response rate, year, and location of survey. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Stratification of reported prevalence by frequency, gender, and age substantially reduced the variation in prevalence estimates. For older women, the estimated prevalence of urinary incontinence ranged from 17 to 55% (median = 35%, pooled mean = 34%), and for daily incontinence it ranged from 3 to 17% (median = 14%, pooled mean = 12%). For older men, incontinence prevalence was estimated to be 11 to 34% (median = 17%, pooled mean = 22%), and 2 to 11% reported daily incontinence (median = 4%, pooled mean = 5%). Within studies, the prevalence of any incontinence was 1.3 to 2.0 times greater for older women than for older men. Among middle‐aged and younger adults, prevalence of incontinence ranged from 12 to 42% (median = 28%, pooled mean = 25%) for women and from 3 to 5% (median = 4%, pooled mean = 5%) for men. The ratio of prevalence of any incontinence for women to men in this age group ranged from 4.1 to 4.5. Stress incontinence predominated in younger women, whereas urge and mixed incontinence predominated in older women. There was a tendency for studies using in‐person interviews to report higher prevalences. CONCLUSIONS: An accurate estimate of the prevalence of urinary incontinence depends on specifying the definition of incontinence and the age and gender groups of interest.

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/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02469.x

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 497

Metadata

Authors
Thom, D.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-04
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
473-480
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W1964482393
Cited by
497
References
0
FWCI
18.93
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in Estimates of Urinary Incontinence Prevalence in the Community: Effects of Differences in Definition, Population Characteristics, and Study Type. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02469.x
The paper
Thom, D. (1998). Variation in Estimates of Urinary Incontinence Prevalence in the Community: Effects of Differences in Definition, Population Characteristics, and Study Type. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02469.x

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.