Published in

Wiley, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 2024

DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15719

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Prevalence of depression and anxiety in women with pelvic floor dysfunctions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundFemale pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a common condition affecting the emotional well‐being of women.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in women with PFD.Search Strategy, Selection Criteria, Data Collection and AnalysisFollowing prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42022362095) we conducted a search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) from inception to April 2023 without language restriction to capture studies reporting the prevalence of depression/anxiety among women with PFD (chronic pelvic pain [CPP], urinary incontinence [UI], pelvic organ prolapse [POP], and/or fecal incontinence [FI]). Only studies with validated tools were included. Data extraction and study quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Stratifying by type of PFD, rates of depression and anxiety were pooled using random effects model computing 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessing heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Funnel plots were used to detect potential reporting biases and small‐study effects.Main ResultsThe search yielded 767 articles, from which 54 studies containing 632 605 women were included. All the studies were high quality. The prevalence of depression was: CPP 26.8% (95% CI: 19.2–34.4, I2 = 98.7%; 12 studies, 4798 participants with 491 cases; Egger's P value = 0.009); UI 26.3% (95% CI: 19.4–33.2, I2 = 99.9%; 26 studies, a total of 346 114 participants with 25 050 cases; Egger's P value = 0.944); POP 34.9% (95% CI: 24.3–45.6, I2 = 68%; three studies, 297 participants with 104 cases; Egger's P value = 0.973); and FI 25.3% (95% CI: 0.68–49.9, I2 = 99.7%; six studies, 14 663 participants with 1773 cases; Egger's P value = 0.780). The prevalence of anxiety was: CPP 29.5% (95% CI: 16.3–42.7, I2 = 97.7%; nine studies, 2483 participants with 349 cases; Egger's P value = 0.001); UI 46.91% (95% CI: 39.1–54.6, I2 = 99.6%; 11 studies, 198 491 participants with 40 058 cases; Egger's P value = 0.337); and POP 28% (95% CI: 13.6–42.4, I2 = 89%; three studies with 355 participants with 90 cases; Egger's P value = 0.306).ConclusionThe prevalence of mental health illness was variable in the different types of PFDs. This meta‐analysis helps quantify the burden of depression and anxiety in PFD and will help inform the policies regarding screening of emotional well‐being by healthcare professionals engaged in care of women with PFD.