Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Incontinence improves in older women after intensive pelvic floor muscle training: an assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial.



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 Incontinence improves in older women after intensive pelvic floor muscle training: an assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Author Sherburn M., Bird M., Carey M., Bø K., Galea MP.
Country Rehabilitation Sciences Research Centre, Melbourne Physiotherapy School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. m.sherburn@unimelb.edu.au
Year 2011
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21284022

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 PFMT pelvic floor muscle training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 BT bladder training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Australia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Community dwelling women aged > 65 with urodynamic stress incontinence; no detrusor overactivity demonstrated on cystometry (<10 cmH2 O detrusor pressure rise); a score of more than 22 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Concurrent or recent physiotherapy intervention (within last 6 months); incontinence due to neurological causes, other causes such as urinary tract infection, or voiding difficulties
  • 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 71.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
5.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
84
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
> 65
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
84
  • 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
    ) |
Notes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2003-2005
  • 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 PFMT BT Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 43 40 83
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
41 35 76
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Family needs (n=2), Spouse death (n=1), Acute Myocardial Infarct (n=1), Forgetful, didn’t arrive for classes (n=1) 7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Withdrew (Family needs Surgery for pelvic pain) 5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Satisfaction with intervention      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure PFMT BT


5 months

N Analyzed 43 35
Counts 26 15
Proportion 68.4 45.4
Outcome: Bladder control, subjective      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure PFMT BT


5 months

N Analyzed 41 35
Counts 14 6
Proportion 36.8 18.2
Outcome: Leakage test: Other (placeholder)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure PFMT BT


0 months

N Analyzed 43 35
Counts
Proportion


5 months

N Analyzed 43 35
Counts
Proportion


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis High RoB completers only assessed
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Low 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 No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.