4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Pelvic floor disorders, diabetes, and obesity in women - Findings from the kaiser permanente continence associated risk epidemology study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 2536-2541

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0262

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R01HD041113] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD41113] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - We examined associations between obesity and diabetes and female pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder (OAB), and anal incontinence (AI) in community-dwelling women. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Women were screened for - PFD using a validated mailed survey. Diabetes status, glycemic control, and diabetes treatment were extracted from clinical databases, while other risk factors for PFDs were obtained through self-report. Women were categorized hierarchically as nonobese/nondiabetic (reference), nonobese/diabetic, obese/nondiabetic, and obese/diabetic. RESULTS - Of 3,962 women, 393 (10%) had diabetes. In unadjusted analyses, women with diabetes and women who were obese had greater odds of having PFDs. Among women with diabetes, being obese was associated with SUI and OAB. After adjusting for confounders, we found that obese/diabetic women were at the highest likelihood of having SUI (odds ratio 3.67 [95% Cl 2.48-5.43]) and Al (2.09 [1.48-2.97]). The odds of having OAB among obese women was the same for obese/diabetic women (2.97 [2.08-4.36]) and obese/noncliabetic women (2.93 [2.33-3.68]). Nonobese/diabetic women had higher odds of SUI (1.90 [1. 15-3. 11]) but did not differ significantly in their OAB (1.45 [0.88-2.38]) and Al (1.33 [0.89-2.00]) prevalence from nonobese/nondiabetic women. CONCLUSIONS - Given the impaired quality of life experienced by women with PFDs, health care providers should counsel women that obesity and diabetes may be independent modifiable risk factors for PFDs.

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

4.7
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