Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Effects of Stabilization Exercises Focusing on Pelvic Floor Muscles on Low Back Pain and Urinary Incontinence in Women.



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 Effects of Stabilization Exercises Focusing on Pelvic Floor Muscles on Low Back Pain and Urinary Incontinence in Women.
Author Ghaderi F., Mohammadi K., Amir Sasan R., Niko Kheslat S., Oskouei AE.
Country Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Year 2016
Numbers Pubmed ID: 27059833

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Routine physiotherapy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Physiotherapy + PFMT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Iran
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Age 45-60 years old; chronic nonspecific low back pain; SUI; experience of 2 or 3 normal deliveries
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Experience of the pelvic surgery or spine; malignant condition; pelvic or spine fracture; had twins or more; have low back pain with specific condition
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • 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
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age 52.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1.12
  • 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 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
    ) |
  • 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 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 Routine physiotherapy Physiotherapy + PFMT Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 30 30 60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd nd nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd nd nd
  • 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 not described
  • 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 Unclear RoB dropouts and method of analysis not described
  • 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 Unclear RoB not described
  • 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 participant flow not provided
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.