Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women

Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, E. Jean C. Hay-Smith*, Muhammad Imran Omar

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first‐line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women

Objectives
To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training combined with another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone in the management of women with urinary incontinence. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 May 2015), and CINAHL (January 1982 to 6 May 2015), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria
We included randomised or quasi‐randomised trials with two or more arms, of women with clinical or urodynamic evidence of stress urinary
incontinence, urgency urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. One arm of the trial included PFMT added to another active treatment; the other arm included the same active treatment alone.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality and resolved any disagreement by discussion or
consultation with a third party. We extracted and processed data in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Other potential sources of bias we incorporated into the 'Risk of bias' tables were ethical approval, conflict of interest and funding source.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD010551
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2013
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Nov 2015

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this