Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus neurostimulation of SP 6 (Sanyinjiao) in urge incontinence. [Spanish]



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 Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus neurostimulation of SP 6 (Sanyinjiao) in urge incontinence. [Spanish]
Author Olmo, Carmona Mv, Molleja, Amg, Rios, Il, Torronteras, Ar, Tamajon, Vmc, Obreroc, Ig
Country
Year 2013
Numbers

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 PTNS
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 sham PTNS
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Spain
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria UUI, men or women (only report on women), older than 45 younger than 75, failed conservative treatment, sx for at least a year.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria nerve damage, prior surgery for incontinence, pace maker, heart problems, current pregnancy, cognitive deficits, skin problems
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 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
    ) |
Age 60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
14.4
  • 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
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • 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? ... Yes ... failed conservative treatments
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years NR
  • 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 PTNS sham PTNS Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 12 12 24
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
11 11 22
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1 1 2
  • 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 Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Low 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.