Back

Bidirectional relationships between mental health problems and urinary incontinence in women: a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis

Knight, R.; Goncalves Soares, A. L.; Burrows, K.; Fraser, A.; Palmer, T. M.; Cartwright, R.; Joinson, C.

2026-02-09 urology
10.64898/2026.02.06.26345734 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveComorbidity between urinary incontinence (UI) and affective disorders, including anxiety and depression, is well established in cross-sectional studies and prospective bidirectional associations have also been reported. It is, however, unclear whether these associations are causal. We applied two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to examine if there are causal bidirectional relationships between UI and anxiety, depression, and neuroticism in women. Materials and methodsWe used summary level data from independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to estimate the bidirectional causal effects of UI and its subtypes (stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), and mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), n=10,931) on anxiety (n=83,566), depression (n=1,035,760), broad depression phenotype (n=500,199) and neuroticism (n=329,821). ResultsWe found little evidence of causal effects in either direction, except for weak evidence suggesting that UUI may reduce the risk of depression (causal odds ratio (OR) for depression: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.98-1.00; OR for broad depression 0.98, 95%CI 0.96-1.00). However, the direction of effect estimates did not consistently align across sensitivity analysis methods and the magnitude of this effect could be considered negligible. ConclusionOur study provided little evidence for causal bidirectional relationships between UI and anxiety, depression and neuroticism. This study highlights the need for further GWAS of UI (including different subtypes) with larger sample sizes. HighlightsO_LIThere was little evidence for causal bidirectional relationships between urinary incontinence (UI) and anxiety, depression, and neuroticism. C_LIO_LIStudy limitations, including low statistical power, UI phenotype definition, and genetic instrument strength, need to be considered when interpreting the findings. C_LIO_LILarger and more comprehensive GWAS of UI (including subtypes) are needed before ruling out causal relationships between UI and mental health. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.5%
2
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.6%
4
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.8%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
7
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.2%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
10
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
13
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
14
American Journal of Psychiatry
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
Journal of Neurotrauma
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
17
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
Nature Mental Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
19
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%