Double incontinence among women globally: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Ref.	Country	Study design	Setting	Population	Age range/mean (years)	Sample size (n)	DI cases (n)	Prevalence (%)	95%CI
Yuaso et al[7], 2018	Brazil	Prospective longitudinal	Community	Elderly women, São Paulo	65-90/74.6 ± 9.5	865	42	4.9	3.7-6.5
Ribeiro et al[5], 2019	Brazil	Cross-sectional retrospective	Public tertiary hospital	UI/FI patients	30-86/60.07 ± 11.10	227	32	14.1	9.9-19.2
Gallas et al[1], 2018	Tunisia	Cross-sectional	Hospital-based	Female doctors and nurses	23-60/36.8 ± 8.32	402	24	6.0	4.1-8.7
Güngör Uğurlucan et al[3], 2014	Turkey	Retrospective cohort	Medical school clinic	UI/POP patients	21-85/53.8 ± 12.0	2518	311	12.3	11.0-13.6
Wu et al[8], 2015	United States	Population-based cross-sectional	NHANES 2005-2010	Community women ≥ 50	50 - ≥ 80	3497	227	6.0	5.0-7.1
Matthews et al[12], 2013	United States	Cross-sectional	Community	Female nurses	62-87/72.7	64396	4660	7.2	7.0-7.4
Johannessen et al[2], 2018	Norway	Prospective cohort	Hospitals	Primiparous women, 1 year postpartum	19-42/28.6-29.8	976	82	8.4	6.8-10.2
	Norway	Prospective cohort	Hospitals	Primiparous women, late pregnancy	19-42	1031	127	13.0	10.8-15.3
Luo et al[4], 2020	China	Cross-sectional multisite	Community-based	Rural elderly women ≥ 65	65-92/72.71	700	73	10.4	8.0-12.8
Slieker-ten Hove et al[13], 2010	Netherlands	Cross-sectional	General population	General female population	45-85/58.0 ± 9.2	1397	143	10.3	8.7-12.2

DI: Double incontinence; CI: Confidence interval; UI: Urinary incontinence; FI: Fecal incontinence; NHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; POP: Pelvic organ prolapse.