4.6 Article

Risk Factors for Nocturnal Enuresis in School-Age Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 182, Issue 6, Pages 2893-2899

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.060

Keywords

child; nocturnal enuresis; questionnaires; risk factors

Funding

  1. Ramaciotti Foundation for Children [RN005/01]
  2. Financial Markets Foundation for Children [143-2004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Although nocturnal enuresis is common in children, its etiology is multifactorial and not fully understood. We evaluated potential risk factors for presence and severity of nocturnal enuresis. Materials and Methods: A validated, reproducible questionnaire was distributed to 8,230 school children in Sydney, Australia. Nocturnal enuresis was defined as any wetting in the previous month and categorized as mild (1 to 6 nights), moderate (7 or more nights but less than nightly) or severe (nightly). Results: Parents of 2,856 children (mean +/- SD age 7.3 +/- 1.3 years) completed the questionnaire (response rate 35%). Overall prevalence of nocturnal enuresis was 18.2%, with 12.3% of patients having mild, 2.5% moderate and 3.6% severe enuresis. Multivariate analysis showed that daytime incontinence (OR 4.8, 95% Cl 2.9 to 7.9), encopresis (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.4), bladder dysfunction (OR 3.6, 95% Cl 2.4 to 5.3) and male gender (OR 2.0, 95% Cl 1.3 to 3.1) were associated with severe nocturnal enuresis after adjustment for age. Emotional stressors (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.2) and social concerns (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.5) were associated with moderate nocturnal enuresis only. Conclusions: Encopresis and daytime incontinence are significant modifiable risk factors for nocturnal enuresis. Expressed as population attributable risk, 23% of nocturnal enuresis is associated with encopresis and daytime incontinence. Psychosocial factors appear to contribute to moderate but not severe nocturnal enuresis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available