Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Exercise programmes for women with stress urinary incontinence



Key Questions Addressed
1 KQ 1: What are the benefits and harms of nonpharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 2: What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 3: What are the comparative benefits and harms of nonpharmacological versus pharmacological treatments of UI in women? KQ 4: What are the benefits and harms of combined nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment of UI in women?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Exercise programmes for women with stress urinary incontinence
Author Ferreira M, Santos P, Duarte JA, Rodrigues R
Country
Year 2012
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Impact of exercise programs in woman's quality of life with stress urinary incontinence Ferreira, M., Santos, P. C. 2012
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Home + supervised exercise program
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Home exercise program
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Portugal
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria a clinical history of SUI with mild to moderate severity, a pad test of more than 1 g, the ability to contract the PFM, and a 50% attendance at the training programmes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria previous surgeries for SUI, neurological or psychiatric diseases, and other diseases or medication that would interfere with the outcomes of the study
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 52.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
9.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 34
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race 34
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes This has a second publication in Spanish
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study? yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Home + supervised exercise program Home exercise program Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 20 18 38
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
17 17 34
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 1 4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
unable to complete study protocol unable to complete study protocol unable to complete study protocol
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Home + supervised exercise program Home exercise program Comparison Measure Home + supervised exercise program vs. Home exercise program


0 months

N Analyzed
Counts


6 months

N Analyzed 17 17 P-Value 0.018
Counts 17 11
Outcome: Leakage test: Pad test      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Home + supervised exercise program Home exercise program Comparison Measure Home + supervised exercise program vs. Home exercise program


0 months

N Analyzed 17 17 Net P value
Mean 3.6 3.8
SD 1.9 3.0
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 17 17 Net P value 0.530
Mean 1.9 2.0
SD 1.5 2.0
SE
Outcome: Incontinence count/frequency (stress)      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Home + supervised exercise program Home exercise program Comparison Measure Home + supervised exercise program vs. Home exercise program


0 months

N Analyzed 17 17
Mean 11.3 11.3
SD 5.1 5.7
SE


6 months

N Analyzed 17 17 Net P value 0.125
Mean 4.5 6.4
SD 5.5 7.5
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis High RoB dropouts for possible tx reasons not included in analysis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS.....Patients in different intervention groups selected in an equivalent manner
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS....Baseline differences between groups accounted for (Adjusted analysis)?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Other issues
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.