Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Comparing Resisted Hip Rotation With Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Study



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 Comparing Resisted Hip Rotation With Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Study
Author Jordre, B., Scwienle, W.
Country
Year 2014
Numbers

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 RHR Resisted Hip Rotation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 PFMT Pelvic floor muscle training
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Age 18-88 years; minimum of 2 SUI episodes per month
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Pregnant or < 4 weeks postpartum; MMSE < 24/30; history of total hip anthroplasty; current treatment for UI; current mediciations known to impact bladder function
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
41
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
59
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 51.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
12.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 27
  • 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 27
  • 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 discussion states that study was not actually randomized
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? Not reported/unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years nd
  • 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 RHR PFMT Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 15 15 30
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
12 15 27
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3 0 3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
unrelated injury (n=1), time commitment (n=2) unrelated injury (n=1), time commitment (n=2)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure RHR PFMT


6 weeks

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE
Outcome: Quality of life      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure RHR PFMT


6 weeks

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE
Outcome: Incontinence count/frequency (total)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure RHR PFMT


6 weeks

N Analyzed
Mean
SD
SE


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence High RoB "randomly assigned" with no further description, but in discussion says "not randomized"
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB not described
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS Unclear RoB not described
  • 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 not described
  • 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 Yes many baseline characteristics not included in analyses or reported; discussion states study was not randomized after all
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.