Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence Via Smartphone



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 Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence Via Smartphone
Author Samuelsson E
Country
Year 2017
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Smartphone treatment with PFMT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Waiting list
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Sweden
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria women >= 18 with stress urinary incontinence, leakage once a week or more often for at least 6 months with a smartphone
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria participation in our previous internet study, pregnancy, former incontinence surgery, known malignancy in lower abdomen, difficulties with passing urine, visual blood in urine, intermenstrual bleeding, severe psychiatric diagnosis, neurological disease with affection on sensibility in legs or lower abdomen, urge incontinence
  • 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 44.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
9.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 123
  • 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 123
  • 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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2013-2014
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Smartphone treatment with PFMT Waiting list Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 62 61 123
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
61 60 121
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1 1 2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Smartphone treatment with PFMT Waiting list


3 months

N Analyzed
Counts
n very much better
n much better
n a little better
n no change
n worse
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Smartphone treatment with PFMT Waiting list


3 months

N Analyzed 62 61
Counts
n very much better 6 0
n much better 28 3
n a little better 22 9
n no change 5 42
n worse 0 6
Outcome: Incontinence count/frequency (stress)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Smartphone treatment with PFMT Waiting list


0 months

N Analyzed 62 61
Mean 21.0 17.5
Max 28 24.5
Min 10.5 10.5


3 months

N Analyzed 62 61
Mean 7 14
SD 14 26
SE 0 7


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 Low RoB
  • 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 Unclear RoB not reported
  • 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.