Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Physical therapy for urinary incontinence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low bone density: a 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 Physical therapy for urinary incontinence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low bone density: a randomized controlled trial.
Author Sran M., Mercier J., Wilson P., Lieblich P., Dumoulin C.
Country 1BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine 3Research Centre of the Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Year 2016
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26886884

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Physical therapy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Education
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Canada
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria postmenopausal women 55 years and older with osteoporosis or low bone density, defined by a T score of -2.0 or lower for the lumbar spine or hip, or a history of a nontraumatic hip, vertebral, wrist, or rib fracture; symptoms of stress, urge, or mixed UI for at least the past 3 months and at least two UI episodes in 3 days
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria previous treatments or workshops on incontinence in the past 5 years; previous UI surgeries (except for those who had had anti-incontinence surgery at least 20 y previously); fecal incontinence; continuous urine leakage; a current urinary tract infection;perineal pain or genital prolapse likely to interfere with the PFM assessment and treatment; previous pelvic irradiation; hormone therapy, use of vaginal estrogen, or an unstable hormone dose within the previous 6 months; use of concomitant treatments for UI during the trial period; severe mobility impairments requiring the use of mobility aids (that would make going to the toilet difficult); use of high-dose diuretics or medications to improve bladder control; history of radiation for pelvic organ cancers; score of less than 24 on the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE); any other medical problem likely to interfere with treatment and evaluation (serious cardiovascular disease, ongoing cancer treatments, neurological conditions, psychiatric conditions); and individuals performing a Valsalva manoeuvre in lieu of PFM contraction
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 16.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
12.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
70.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 66.65
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
7.58
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 48
  • 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 48
  • 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 2006-2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given) ND
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study? no
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Physical therapy Education Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 24 24 48
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
24 24 48
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 3 5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Satisfaction with intervention      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Physical therapy Education


0 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


12 months

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment High RoB
  • 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) 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 Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS....Baseline differences between groups accounted for (Adjusted analysis)? Not Applicable
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Other issues Not Applicable
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.