4.2 Review

Prevalence of anal incontinence according to age and gender: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 407-417

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-005-0014-5

关键词

anal; incontinence; prevalence; systematic; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Anal incontinence is increasingly being recognised as a significant cause of physical and psychological morbidity with implications for healthcare provision within the community. There is controversy about which population groups are most disadvantaged by this chronic condition. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of this condition in the community according to age and gender, a systematic review was performed. Data sources: Data were from Embase, Medline, bibliographies of known articles and contact with experts. Study selection: Studies were selected if data on anal incontinence could be extracted for participants over 15 years of age and living in the community. Data extraction: Data were extracted using a piloted form on participants' characteristics, study quality and incontinence rates. Data synthesis: Meta-analysis was used to combine data from multiple studies, and meta-regression evaluated the variation in rates according to age and gender in an analysis adjusted for study quality. Results: There were 29 studies (69,152 participants), of which 5 met over half of the high quality criteria. The rate of solid and liquid faecal incontinence among people aged 15-60 years was 0.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.9] in men and 1.6% (95% CI 0.8-3.1) in women. In those aged over 60, this increased to 5.1% (95% CI 3.4-7.6) in men and 6.2% (95% CI 4.9-8.0) in women. Meta-regression showed that age had a significant influence on rates of solid and liquid faecal incontinence (p=0.007), but not gender (p=0.368) or study quality (p=0.085). Conclusions: The rate of solid and liquid faecal incontinence in older people is significantly higher than their younger counterparts. Gender differences in rates did not reach statistical significance.

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