Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Continuous improvement of portable domestic pelvic floor neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the pelvic floor function of patients with 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 Continuous improvement of portable domestic pelvic floor neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the pelvic floor function of patients with urinary incontinence.
Author Sun Z., Zhu L., Lang J., Wang W., Shi H., Pang H., Shi X.
Country Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26887879

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 electrophysiological treatment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Pelvic floor electrophysiological treatment + neuromuscular electrical stimulation + biofeedback training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries China
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria 27-60 yo, Subjects have a fertility history, have had one or more unconscious urinary incontinence, willing to participate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Pregnancy, received pelvic or abdominal surgery in the last 6 months , urinary incontinence treatment (such as drugs, biofeedback and bladder training, etc.), pacemaker, nervous system abnormalities, urinary tract infections, reproductive tract inflammation, chronic Cough, asthma
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Directionality Prospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 37
  • 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 60
  • 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
  • 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
    ) |
60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • 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 2014-2015
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given) na
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study? no
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Pelvic floor electrophysiological treatment Pelvic floor electrophysiological treatment + neuromuscular electrical stimulation + biofeedback training Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 30 30 60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
30 30 60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0 0 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Leakage test: Pad test      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Pelvic floor electrophysiological treatment Pelvic floor electrophysiological treatment + neuromuscular electrical stimulation + biofeedback training


9 months

N Analyzed 30 30
Counts


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS High RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis Unclear 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) Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Unclear 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.