Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Role of Pelvic Floor Muscle Therapy in Obese Perimenopausal Females with Stress Incontinence: A Randomized Control 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 Role of Pelvic Floor Muscle Therapy in Obese Perimenopausal Females with Stress Incontinence: A Randomized Control Trial
Author Abdulaziz K, Hasan T
Country
Year 2012
Numbers

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 pelvic floor exercise
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 no therapy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Saudi Arabia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria perimenopausal (Age 40-50years), multiparous (3-6 children), obese women (BMI > 32/Kg/M2) with complaints of pelvic floor dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria history of genetourinary pathology, neurological disorders, chest infection, chronic cough, diabetes or having participated at aerobic training programs within recent three months
  • 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 43.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
40, 50
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 56
  • 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 56
  • 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? No (explicitly treatment naive)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2010-2011
  • 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 pelvic floor exercise no therapy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 29 27 56
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
29 27 56
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0 0 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Incontinence Severity Index      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure pelvic floor exercise no therapy


0 months

N Analyzed 29 27
n not wet 0 0
n mild wet 15 17
n moderate wet 8 7
n severe wet 6 3


3 months

N Analyzed 29 27
n not wet 26 5
n mild wet 3 15
n moderate wet 0 7
n severe wet 0 0


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) Unclear RoB very few baselines given
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Unclear RoB "Some women who missed their sessions were requested for compliance in future."
  • 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.