M. Dheresa, N. Assefa, Y. Berhane, Alelmayhu Worku, Bizatu Mingiste, Yadeta Dessie
{"title":"Gynecological Morbidity among Women in Reproductive Age: A SystematicReview and Meta-Analysis","authors":"M. Dheresa, N. Assefa, Y. Berhane, Alelmayhu Worku, Bizatu Mingiste, Yadeta Dessie","doi":"10.4172/2167-0420.1000367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prevention against infection and dysfunction of reproductive organ including sexually transmitted \n disease is one of the three dimensions of reproductive health. Gynecological morbidities affect women’s physical \n health, sexual function, social role, psychological life and religious life. For accurate estimation of gynecological \n morbidity, population based data are considered to be gold standard. There are no global wide population studies on \n gynecological morbidities. In this paper, we aimed to determine the prevalence of gynecological morbidity among the \n reproductive age women in the world. \nMethods: Using various key words, electronics databases were searched systematically to identify observational \n studies published so far in English. Meta-analysis was made to summarize the prevalence of gynecological \n morbidity. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence. Publication bias was evaluated by \n testing for funnel plot asymmetry, Begg’s rank correlation test and Egger’s linear regression test. All statistical \n calculations were made using STATA Version 12.0 software. \nResult: Eighteen studies, at least with one outcome variable were included in the final analysis. Ten studies were \n eligible for pelvic organ prolapse, 8 were eligible for infertility, 11 for menstrual disorder, and 15 for reproductive tract \n infection. The summarized random effect prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse was 13%, infertility was 8%, \n reproductive tract infection was 38%, and menstrual disorders were 28%. The overall pooled random effect \n prevalence of gynecological morbidity was 22% (95% CI=17%-27%, I2=99.38%, p=000). The potential publication \n bias was suggested by funnel plot asymmetry. \nConclusion: The polled prevalence of overall gynecological morbidity was high. This pooled prevalence enabled \n us to conclude that the effect of gynecological morbidities is high to hamper the productivity of reproductive age \n women in the world particularly in a developing nation.","PeriodicalId":17626,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Womens Health Care","volume":"77 1","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Womens Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0420.1000367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17
Abstract
Background: Prevention against infection and dysfunction of reproductive organ including sexually transmitted
disease is one of the three dimensions of reproductive health. Gynecological morbidities affect women’s physical
health, sexual function, social role, psychological life and religious life. For accurate estimation of gynecological
morbidity, population based data are considered to be gold standard. There are no global wide population studies on
gynecological morbidities. In this paper, we aimed to determine the prevalence of gynecological morbidity among the
reproductive age women in the world.
Methods: Using various key words, electronics databases were searched systematically to identify observational
studies published so far in English. Meta-analysis was made to summarize the prevalence of gynecological
morbidity. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence. Publication bias was evaluated by
testing for funnel plot asymmetry, Begg’s rank correlation test and Egger’s linear regression test. All statistical
calculations were made using STATA Version 12.0 software.
Result: Eighteen studies, at least with one outcome variable were included in the final analysis. Ten studies were
eligible for pelvic organ prolapse, 8 were eligible for infertility, 11 for menstrual disorder, and 15 for reproductive tract
infection. The summarized random effect prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse was 13%, infertility was 8%,
reproductive tract infection was 38%, and menstrual disorders were 28%. The overall pooled random effect
prevalence of gynecological morbidity was 22% (95% CI=17%-27%, I2=99.38%, p=000). The potential publication
bias was suggested by funnel plot asymmetry.
Conclusion: The polled prevalence of overall gynecological morbidity was high. This pooled prevalence enabled
us to conclude that the effect of gynecological morbidities is high to hamper the productivity of reproductive age
women in the world particularly in a developing nation.