Introduction and hypothesis: This narrative review describes the existing epidemiologic literature and identifies gaps regarding pelvic organ prolapse (POP) prevalence, incidence, natural history, and current and future service needs.
Materials and methods: A PubMed search identified relevant citations published in 2000 or later. Pre-specified criteria were used to screen titles, abstracts, and manuscripts, including reference sections. Study findings were summarized to define what is known, identify gaps in current knowledge, and suggest priority areas for future research.
Results: The reported prevalence of POP varies widely (1-65%) based on whether its presence is ascertained by symptoms (1-31%), pelvic examination (10-50%), or both (20-65%). Most existing population-based surveys do not include physical examination data. White women from higher income countries are overrepresented in the existing literature. Incidence and natural history data are limited and consist mainly of cohorts that follow women after pregnancy or menopause. Given global increases in aging populations in well-resourced countries, the need for POP treatment is anticipated to increase in the coming decades. In lower and middle income countries (LMICs) where demographic trends are different, there is a dearth of information about anticipated POP service needs.
Conclusion: Future POP incidence, prevalence, and natural history studies should include non-white women from LMICs and should combine pelvic examination data with validated patient-reported outcome measures when feasible. Anticipated future service needs differ globally, with a greater demand for POP treatment services in well-resourced settings where aging populations are prevalent.
Keywords: Epidemiology; Incidence; Natural history; Pelvic organ prolapse; Prevalence.
© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.