Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Hawra B. Al Dandan, S. Coote, D. McClurg

International Journal of MS Care, 2020

64 citations

Abstract

Background

No published study, to our knowledge, has systematically reviewed the prevalence estimates of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) and LUTS types in the general multiple sclerosis (MS) population. Therefore, a systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to determine the totality of literature investigating the prevalence of LUTSs and LUTS types in the general MS population according to International Continence Society definitions.

Methods

Various electronic databases were searched between January 4, 2018, and February 12, 2018. This review included observational studies involving adults (18 years or older) with a confirmed diagnosis of MS recruited from the general MS population using self-report and/or objective outcome measures for LUTSs.

Results

Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that LUTSs were prevalent in people with MS, with a pooled prevalence of 68.41% using self-report and 63.95% using the objective measure of urodynamics. When considering LUTS types, urinary frequency was the predominant symptom, with a pooled prevalence estimate of 73.45%, followed by urgency assessed using self-report measures at 63.87%. Detrusor overactivity was found to be the most prevalent urodynamic symptom, with a pooled prevalence estimate of 42.9%, followed by detrusor sphincter dyssynergia at 35.44%.

Conclusions

This systematic review revealed that LUTSs are highly prevalent in MS. There is a need for improvement in the conduct and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free