Evidence Hub

Analysis of risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection in women of reproductive AGE : a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and primary observational studies

Chaidir Septia Putra, Derevie Hendryan Moulina

International journal of medical science and health research, 2026

374,171 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Recurrent urinary tract infection is among the most common reasons for an otherwise healthy woman to consult a physician, and it is a principal driver of outpatient antimicrobial consumption worldwide. More than half of all adult women experience at least one urinary tract infection during their lifetime and approximately one quarter go on to experience recurrence. Although frequently framed as a disorder of the postmenopausal years, contemporary cohorts demonstrate a bimodal incidence with a distinct peak in the reproductive-age decades. The determinants operating in this younger stratum are behavioural, sexual, microbiological, and constitutional. This review aimed to identify, appraise, and quantitatively pool the risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection in women of reproductive age.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Eligible designs included randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and other analytical observational designs. The population was premenopausal women aged 15–49 years. The outcome was recurrent urinary tract infection (≥2 episodes within 6 months or ≥3 within 12 months). Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, RoB 2, and AXIS. Effect estimates were pooled on the logarithmic scale using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Heterogeneity was quantified…

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. Reported size: 374,171 participants or records.

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