Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between RFM and Stress Urinary Incontinence

From: U‑shaped association between relative fat mass (RFM) and stress urinary incontinence: a cross‑sectional study

SUI

OR (95% CI), P-value

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Continuous

1.15 (1.14, 1.15) < 0.0001

1.06 (1.05, 1.06) < 0.0001

1.05 (1.05, 1.06) < 0.0001

Categories

   

 Q1

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 Q2

2.40 (2.10, 2.74) < 0.0001

1.22 (1.05, 1.40) 0.0074

1.12 (0.97, 1.30) 0.1290

 Q3

10.17 (9.02, 11.47) < 0.0001

1.91 (1.64, 2.22) < 0.0001

1.62 (1.38, 1.89) < 0.0001

 Q4

22.31 (19.82, 25.11) < 0.0001

2.90 (2.47, 3.39) < 0.0001

2.42 (2.05, 2.86) < 0.0001

 P for trend

 < 0.001

 < 0.001

 < 0.001

  1. Model 1: unadjusted
  2. Model 2: adjusted for age, gender, and race/ethnicity
  3. Model 3: adjusted for all variables, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational level, marital status, the ratio of family income to poverty, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, moderate recreation activity, vigorous recreation activity, number of vaginal deliveries, cesarean deliveries, female hormones used
  4. OR odds ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence interval, SUI stress urinary incontinence, RFM relative fat mass, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Back to article page

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us