4.2 Article

The prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and overactive bladder (OAB) by racial/ethnic group and age: Results from OAB-POLL

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 230-237

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.22295

关键词

epidemiology; ethnic group; OAB; prevalence; race

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To estimate the prevalence of LUTS and OAB in a large, ethnically diverse US study. Methods This cross-sectional, population-representative survey was conducted via the Internet in the US among 10,000 men and women aged 1870 (2,000 African-Americans [AA], 2,000 Hispanics, 6,000 whites). The LUTS tool assessed how often participants experienced LUTS during the past 4 weeks on a five-point Likert scale. OAB was defined by the presence of urinary urgency sometimes or often, and/or the presence of urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate group differences. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the impact of racial/ethnic group on OAB. Results Response rate, 56.7%. Prevalent LUTS included terminal dribble and nocturia across gender, post-micturition leaking (men), and stress incontinence (women). Prevalence of OAB sometimes and often were 17% and 8% in men and 30% and 20% in womenwith significantly higher rates among AA men and women. A similar trend was found for UUI among men (AA, 10%; Hispanic and whites, 6%), while AA and white women had higher prevalence of UUI (19%) as compared to Hispanic women (16%). In logistic regression analyses, AA and Hispanic men and women were significantly more likely than whites to have OAB despite having lower prevalence of self-reported comorbid conditions and risk factors. Conclusions LUTS and OAB are highly prevalent in both men and women and increase with advancing age. Further, racial/ethnic group is a robust predictor of OAB in men and women. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32: 230237, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据