Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A pilot study on the use of acupuncture or pelvic floor muscle training for mixed 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 A pilot study on the use of acupuncture or pelvic floor muscle training for mixed urinary incontinence.
Author Solberg M., Alr├Žk T., Mdala I., Klovning A.
Country Faculty of Medicine, Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway.
Year 2016
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26362793

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Acupunture
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 PFMT pelvic floor muscle training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 Waitlist control
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Norway
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Industry funded/industry provided materials
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Age > 18 years; MUI
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Pregnant or planning to become pregnant; given birth within 12 months before onset of study; using medication for incontinence; undergone surgery for incontinence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • 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
    ) |
Age 62.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
medan
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
29,87
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 34
  • 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 34
  • 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 For funding, The Norwegian Acupuncture Association funded open access fee.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2012
  • 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 Acupunture PFMT Waitlist control Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 12 10 12 34
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
8 6 6 20
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4 4 6 10
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Relocated (n=1); new job (n=1); d/c diagnosed with cancer (n=1); d/c no treatment effect (n=1) inconvenient training time (n=3); d/c due to old age (n=1) Reasons unknown (n=6)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons

No Results found.

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 dropouts not analyzed
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) High RoB High dropout rates
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) High RoB Incontinence score significantly different between groups at baseline
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions High RoB High dropouts due to intervention components
  • 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.