Worldwide Prevalence of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zahra  Hadizadeh-Talasaz; Talaat  Khadivzadeh; Taraneh  Mohajeri; Masoumeh  Sadeghi

doi:10.18502/ijph.v53i3.15134

Zahra Hadizadeh-Talasaz Reproductive Health, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Talaat Khadivzadeh Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Taraneh Mohajeri Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Mashhad Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Masoumeh Sadeghi Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v53i3.15134

Keywords: Pelvic organ prolapse; Prevalence; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse is varied in different countries. For validating the results of numerous studies on the prevalence of Pelvic organ prolapse in the world, a meta-analysis study seems necessary to provide an accurate and valid prevalence for planners and researchers in this field. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the worldwide prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse using the meta-analysis method.

Methods: By using valid keywords, searching was done in ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Medline databases, and 22 articles were selected based on inclusion criteria between 2009 and 2021. The quality of articles was checked using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Meta-analysis was performed on collected data using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA, Version 2). Meta-analysis of data was done with a random-effects model. The heterogeneity of the study was checked using the I² index. Publication bias was assessed by the Egger test and funnel graph.

Results: The overall prevalence of included studies was 30.9% (95% confidence interval: 24.4-38.2%), (P<0.001, heterogeneity I2=99.8%). Meta-analysis of subgroups in studies that used a questionnaire to estimate the prevalence rate showed the prevalence was 25.0% and, in the studies, used the physical examination was 41.8%.

Conclusion: Studies carried out in different parts of the world have examined the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse using different tools. Since some cases are asymptomatic, especially in the low stage of prolapse, physical examination of pelvic organ prolapse should be considered an essential tool in evaluating pelvic organ prolapse.