{Reference Type}: Journal Article {Title}: Association Between Striae and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. {Author}: Yousefi F;Abbaspoor Z;Siahkal SF;Mohaghegh Z;Ghanbari S;Zahedian M; {Journal}: Int Urogynecol J {Volume}: 0 {Issue}: 0 {Year}: 2024 Jun 12 {Factor}: 1.932 {DOI}: 10.1007/s00192-024-05832-1 {Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: The high prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and related complications shows the necessity of early identification of risk factors. It is considered that striae and POP share a similar physiopathology. However, the link between the two is still inconclusive and requires further investigation. We conducted this study to evaluate the association between striae and POP.
METHODS: Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to find relevant literature from inception up to May 2023. Full-text articles published in English or other languages and observational studies were included. The statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14.2. The random effects model was performed and heterogeneity was ≥ 50%. Statistical tools such as the Chi-squared test and the I2 index were used to calculate the level of heterogeneity among studies. Additionally, we utilized Funnel plots and Egger tests to assess the presence of publication bias.
RESULTS: Seven studies were selected for meta-analysis, yielding a total of 605 patients and 660 control subjects, to assess the link between striae and POP. The overall pooled odds ratio (OR) was 2.08 (95% confidence interval 1.04-4.19, I2 = 80.40%). Our analysis revealed a strong relationship between POP and striae (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study recommends that stretch marks may be used as a helpful indicator of the risk for POP. Evaluation of striae as a risk factor and screening tool for detecting women at risk for the development of POP should be addressed in future well-designed studies. However, there is a need for high-quality studies in this field owing to the low quality of evidence.