Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The improvement in pelvic floor symptoms with weight loss in obese women does not correlate with the changes in pelvic anatomy.



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 The improvement in pelvic floor symptoms with weight loss in obese women does not correlate with the changes in pelvic anatomy.
Author Gozukara YM., Akalan G., Tok EC., Aytan H., Ertunc D.
Country Department of Internal Medicine, Mersin State Hospital, Mersin, Turkey.
Year 2014
Numbers Pubmed ID: 24711149

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 control group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 weight loss group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Turkey
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria ive or more episodes of any UI in a-3-day voiding diary and a BMI over 25 kg/m2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Women who had used medical therapy for incontinence or made any attempt at weight loss within the previous month and women with urinary tract infection, pregnancy, or parturition in the previous 6 months and previous genitourinary surgery were excluded. Patients with UI due to neurological or functional origins, or with significant systemic and genitourinary medical conditions, and women who required assistance during their daily activities were also excluded. Additionally, patients who were using any medication that potentially af- fects urinary continence (e.g., cholinergic and anticholinergic agents, certain antihypertensives, diuretics, opioids, and cer- tain psychotropic drugs) were excluded.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 23.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
39.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
37.1
  • 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
    ) |
9.7
  • 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
    ) |
99
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
30.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
post-menopausal
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race
  • 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 2008-2008
  • 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 control group weight loss group Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 189 189 378
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
158 163 321
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
31 26 57
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Incontinence count/frequency (stress)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure control group weight loss group


0 months

N Analyzed 158 163
Mean 7.08 7.96
SD 0.15 0.17


6 months

N Analyzed 158 163
Mean 7.03 3.11
SD 0.13 0.13
Within-Arm Comparisons
Comparison Measure control group weight loss group
ERROR vs. ERROR Net P value <0.001
Outcome: Incontinence count/frequency (urgency)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure control group weight loss group


0 months

N Analyzed 158 163
Mean 2.74 2.85
SD 2.85 0.08


6 months

N Analyzed 158 163
Mean 2.48 1.08
SD 0.08 0.08


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 Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Unclear 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.