Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Impact of pelvic floor muscle training on sexual function of women with urinary incontinence and a comparison of electrical stimulation versus standard treatment (IPSU trial): a randomised 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 Impact of pelvic floor muscle training on sexual function of women with urinary incontinence and a comparison of electrical stimulation versus standard treatment (IPSU trial): a randomised controlled trial.
Author Jha S., Walters SJ., Bortolami O., Dixon S., Alshreef A.
Country Department of Urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield S10 2SF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Swati.Jha@sth.nhs.uk.
Year 2017
Numbers Pubmed ID: 28801034

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


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 PFMT + electrical stimulation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 PFMT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries UK
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Explicitly not industry funded
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Sexually active, over the age of 18 yrs and with urinary incontinence attending for PFMT; greater than 25% on the urinary domain of the sexual function dimension, and/or greater than 33% for the degree of bother for the same symptom
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria prolapse, previous incontinence surgery, >=Grade 3 muscle strength, UTI, pacemaker, IUD, pregnant, undiagnosed pelvic pain, known sensitivity to electrodes or gel, infection of vulva or vagina, recent hemorrhage or hematoma, atrophic vaginitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • 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
    ) |
Age 45.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mean
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
9.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
18
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations 114
  • 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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
112
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
98
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1
  • 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 2012-2015
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given) IPSU Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question PFMT + electrical stimulation PFMT Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 114
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
69
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
45
  • 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 Unclear 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 patient reported outcomes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) High RoB 44% dropout
  • 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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? No No description of electrical stimulation, no duration or frequency data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.