Paradoxical Findings in the Treatment of Predominant Stress and Urge Incontinence: A Pilot Study With Exercise and Electrical Stimulation

Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence (UI) is the involuntary loss of urine and can be caused by several different conditions. The common types of UI are stress (SUI), urgency (UUI) and mixed (MUI). A wide range of interventions can be delivered to reduce the symptoms of UI in women. Conservative interventions are generally recommended as the first line of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effects of conservative interventions for treating UI in women.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library to January 2021 (CDSR; 2021, Issue 1) and included any Cochrane Review that included studies with women aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of SUI, UUI or MUI, and investigating a conservative intervention aimed at improving or curing UI. We included reviews that compared a conservative intervention with 'control' (which included placebo, no treatment or usual care), another conservative intervention or another active, but non-conservative, intervention. A stakeholder group informed the selection and synthesis of evidence. Two overview authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and judged review quality, resolving disagreements through discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cure or improvement and condition-specific quality of life. We judged the risk of bias in included reviews using the ROBIS tool. We judged the certainty of evidence within the reviews based on the GRADE approach. Evidence relating to SUI, UUI or all types of UI combined (AUI) were synthesised separately. The AUI group included evidence relating to participants with MUI, as well as from studies that combined women with different diagnoses (i.e. SUI, UUI and MUI) and studies in which the type of UI was unclear.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 relevant Cochrane Reviews. Seven focused on physical therapies; five on education, behavioural and lifestyle advice; one on mechanical devices; one on acupuncture and one on yoga. Fourteen focused on non-conservative interventions but had a comparison with a conservative intervention. No reviews synthesised evidence relating to psychological therapies. There were 112 unique trials (including 8975 women) that had primary outcome data included in at least one analysis. Stress urinary incontinence (14 reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate or high certainty evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), PFMT plus biofeedback and cones were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. PFMT and intravaginal devices improved quality of life compared to control. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure and improvement of UI, there was moderate or high certainty evidence that: continence pessary plus PFMT was more beneficial than continence pessary alone; PFMT plus educational intervention was more beneficial than cones; more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT; and PFMT plus an adherence strategy was more beneficial than PFMT alone. There was no moderate or high certainty evidence for quality of life. Urgency urinary incontinence (five reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high-certainty evidence demonstrating that PFMT plus feedback, PFMT plus biofeedback, electrical stimulation and bladder training were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. Women using electrical stimulation plus PFMT had higher quality of life than women in the control group. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure or improvement, there was moderate certainty evidence that electrical stimulation was more effective than laseropuncture. There was high or moderate certainty evidence that PFMT resulted in higher quality of life than electrical stimulation and electrical stimulation plus PFMT resulted in better cure or improvement and higher quality of life than PFMT alone. All types of urinary incontinence (13 reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement with PFMT, electrical stimulation, weight loss and cones compared to control. There was moderate certainty evidence of improved quality of life with PFMT compared to control. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: there was moderate or high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement for PFMT with bladder training than bladder training alone. Likewise, PFMT with more individual health professional supervision was more effective than less contact/supervision and more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT. There was moderate certainty evidence that PFMT plus bladder training resulted in higher quality of life than bladder training alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty that PFMT is more beneficial than control for all types of UI for outcomes of cure or improvement and quality of life. We are moderately certain that, if PFMT is more intense, more frequent, with individual supervision, with/without combined with behavioural interventions with/without an adherence strategy, effectiveness is improved. We are highly certain that, for cure or improvement, cones are more beneficial than control (but not PFMT) for women with SUI, electrical stimulation is beneficial for women with UUI, and weight loss results in more cure and improvement than control for women with AUI. Most evidence within the included Cochrane Reviews is of low certainty. It is important that future new and updated Cochrane Reviews develop questions that are more clinically useful, avoid multiple overlapping reviews and consult women with UI to further identify outcomes of importance.

Biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic electrical stimulation in women with overactive bladder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to compare biofeedback-assisted pelvic muscle floor training (PFMT) and pelvic electrical stimulation (ES) as an intervention group, with PFMT or bladder training (BT) as the control group, in women with an overactive bladder (OAB).

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to November 2021. The RCTs were screened for our eligibility criteria and quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk Index of Bias tools. The outcomes were changes in quality of life (QoL), episodes of incontinence, and the number of participants cured/improved.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 562 patients (comprising 204 patients with biofeedback-assisted PFMT, 108 patients with pelvic ES, and 250 patients who received PFMT alone or BT and lifestyle recommendations only, as the control group) were included. The ES group showed significant differences in terms of changes to QoL (mean difference [MD]: 7.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.90-12.92, p = 0.008), episodes of incontinence (MD: -1.33, 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.17, p = 0.02), and the number of participants cured or improved (risk ratio [RR]: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.14-1.87, p = 0.003), while the biofeedback group resulted in nonsignificant changes in QoL (MD: 0.13, 95% CI: 7.87-8.12, p = 0.98), episodes of incontinence (MD: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.89 to 0.90, p = 0.99), and the number of participants cured or improved (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.99-1.33, p = 0.08), both compared to the control group respectively.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that low-frequency pelvic ES appears to be sufficient and effective as an additional intervention for women with OAB in clinical practice according to improvements in the subjects' QoL and reduction of symptoms. Meanwhile, biofeedback-assisted PFMT does not appear to be a significant adjuvant for conservative OAB therapy.

Pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction in women

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the principles of pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT), review the evidence for PFPT as a treatment for pelvic floor dysfunction, and summarize the current recommendations for PFPT as a first-line conservative treatment option for pelvic floor disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pelvic floor dysfunction can cause voiding and defecation problems, pelvic organ prolapse (POP), sexual dysfunction, and pelvic pain. PFPT is a program of functional retraining to improve pelvic floor muscle strength, endurance, power, and relaxation in patients with pelvic floor dysfunction. Based on the available evidence, PFPT with or without supplemental modalities can improve or cure symptoms of urinary incontinence, POP, fecal incontinence, peripartum and postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction, and hypertonic pelvic floor disorders, including pelvic floor myofascial pain, dyspareunia, vaginismus, and vulvodynia. Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of perioperative PFPT before or after POP and urinary incontinence surgery.

SUMMARY

PFPT has robust evidence-based support and clear benefit as a first-line treatment for most pelvic floor disorders. Standards of PFPT treatment protocols, however, vary widely and larger well designed trials are recommended to show long-term effectiveness.

Is pelvic floor muscle training effective for symptoms of overactive bladder in women? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome can be very bothersome and is associated with impaired quality of life and work productivity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on OAB symptoms in women. Furthermore, to assess the influence of PFMT on pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, satisfaction with treatment, side effects, adherence and the quality of exercise reporting.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) was used to assess the quality of exercise reporting.

STUDY SELECTION

Full text RCTs including non-pregnant female participants, investigating PFMT vs inactive control or usual care, other life style modifications or other interventions.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

Descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included. There was considerable heterogeneity of PFMT protocols, outcome measures and follow-up periods. Hence, a qualitative analysis was undertaken. PFMT provided a significant reduction of OAB symptoms in five studies with a reduction in urinary frequency (n=1), and urgency urinary incontinence (n=4). PFM function was assessed in three studies, and two studies found improvement in favor of PFMT.

LIMITATIONS

A meta-analysis was not possible due to huge heterogeneity of included studies.

CONCLUSION

PFMT might reduce OAB symptoms, however, due to many limitations of the published studies it is not possible to clearly determine the effect of PFMT on OAB symptoms and PFM function. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42018085640.

Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women: a cochrane systematic review abridged republication

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence in comparison to a control treatment and to summarize relevant economic findings.

METHODS

Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register (February 12, 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (symptoms, signs, or urodynamic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were independently assessed by at least two reviewers authors and subgrouped by urinary incontinence type. Quality of evidence was assessed by adopting the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

The review included thirty-one trials involving 1817 women from 14 countries. Overall, trials were small to moderate size, and many were at moderate risk of bias. There was considerable variation in the intervention's content and duration. Based on data available, we can be confident that Pelvic floor muscle training can cure or improve symptoms of stress and all other types of urinary incontinence. It may reduce the number of leakage episodes and the quantity of leakage, while improving reported symptoms and quality of life. Women were more satisfied with Pelvic floor muscle training, while those in control groups were more likely to seek further treatment. Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pelvic floor muscle training needs to be further researched.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ten new trials did not change the essential findings of the earlier review, suggesting that Pelvic floor muscle training could be included in first-line conservative management of women with urinary incontinence.

Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is sometimes also recommended for mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and, less commonly, urgency urinary incontinence (UUI).This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PFMT for women with urinary incontinence (UI) in comparison to no treatment, placebo or sham treatments, or other inactive control treatments; and summarise the findings of relevant economic evaluations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 12 February 2018), which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with SUI, UUI or MUI (based on symptoms, signs or urodynamics). One arm of the trial included PFMT. Another arm was a no treatment, placebo, sham or other inactive control treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias. We extracted and cross-checked data. A third review author resolved disagreements. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We subgrouped trials by diagnosis of UI. We undertook formal meta-analysis when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 31 trials (10 of which were new for this update) involving 1817 women from 14 countries. Overall, trials were of small-to-moderate size, with follow-ups generally less than 12 months and many were at moderate risk of bias. There was considerable variation in the intervention's content and duration, study populations and outcome measures. There was only one study of women with MUI and only one study with UUI alone, with no data on cure, cure or improvement, or number of episodes of UI for these subgroups.Symptomatic cure of UI at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT groups were eight times more likely to report cure (56% versus 6%; risk ratio (RR) 8.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.68 to 19.07; 4 trials, 165 women; high-quality evidence). For women with any type of UI, PFMT groups were five times more likely to report cure (35% versus 6%; RR 5.34, 95% CI 2.78 to 10.26; 3 trials, 290 women; moderate-quality evidence).Symptomatic cure or improvement of UI at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT groups were six times more likely to report cure or improvement (74% versus 11%; RR 6.33, 95% CI 3.88 to 10.33; 3 trials, 242 women; moderate-quality evidence). For women with any type of UI, PFMT groups were two times more likely to report cure or improvement than women in the control groups (67% versus 29%; RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.47; 2 trials, 166 women; moderate-quality evidence).UI-specific symptoms and quality of life (QoL) at the end of treatment: compared with no treatment or inactive control treatments, women with SUI who were in the PFMT group were more likely to report significant improvement in UI symptoms (7 trials, 376 women; moderate-quality evidence), and to report significant improvement in UI QoL (6 trials, 348 women; low-quality evidence). For any type of UI, women in the PFMT group were more likely to report significant improvement in UI symptoms (1 trial, 121 women; moderate-quality evidence) and to report significant improvement in UI QoL (4 trials, 258 women; moderate-quality evidence). Finally, for women with mixed UI treated with PFMT, there was one small trial (12 women) reporting better QoL.Leakage episodes in 24 hours at the end of treatment: PFMT reduced leakage episodes by one in women with SUI (mean difference (MD) 1.23 lower, 95% CI 1.78 lower to 0.68 lower; 7 trials, 432 women; moderate-quality evidence) and in women with all types of UI (MD 1.00 lower, 95% CI 1.37 lower to 0.64 lower; 4 trials, 349 women; moderate-quality evidence).Leakage on short clinic-based pad tests at the end of treatment: women with SUI in the PFMT groups lost significantly less urine in short (up to one hour) pad tests. The comparison showed considerable heterogeneity but the findings still favoured PFMT when using a random-effects model (MD 9.71 g lower, 95% CI 18.92 lower to 0.50 lower; 4 trials, 185 women; moderate-quality evidence). For women with all types of UI, PFMT groups also reported less urine loss on short pad tests than controls (MD 3.72 g lower, 95% CI 5.46 lower to 1.98 lower; 2 trials, 146 women; moderate-quality evidence).Women in the PFMT group were also more satisfied with treatment and their sexual outcomes were better. Adverse events were rare and, in the two trials that did report any, they were minor. The findings of the review were largely supported by the 'Summary of findings' tables, but most of the evidence was downgraded to moderate on methodological grounds. The exception was 'participant-perceived cure' in women with SUI, which was rated as high quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data available, we can be confident that PFMT can cure or improve symptoms of SUI and all other types of UI. It may reduce the number of leakage episodes, the quantity of leakage on the short pad tests in the clinic and symptoms on UI-specific symptom questionnaires. The authors of the one economic evaluation identified for the Brief Economic Commentary reported that the cost-effectiveness of PFMT looks promising. The findings of the review suggest that PFMT could be included in first-line conservative management programmes for women with UI. The long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT needs to be further researched.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Several treatment options are available for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), drug therapy and surgery. Problems exist such as adherence to PFMT regimens, side effects linked to drug therapy and the risks associated with surgery. We have evaluated an alternative treatment, electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, which aims to improve pelvic floor muscle function to reduce involuntary urine loss.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices, alone or in combination with other treatment, for managing stress urinary incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence in women. Among the outcomes examined were costs and cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearches of journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and undertook separate searches to identify studies examining economic data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for SUI in women. Eligible trials included adult women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). We excluded studies of women with urgency-predominant MUI, urgency urinary incontinence only, or incontinence associated with a neurologic condition. We would have included economic evaluations had they been conducted alongside eligible trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We would have performed economic evaluations using the approach recommended by Cochrane Economic Methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 eligible trials (3781 randomised participants). Eighteen trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective cure, improvement of SUI or incontinence-specific quality of life (QoL). The risk of bias was generally unclear, as most trials provided little detail when reporting their methods. We assessed 25% of the included trials as being at high risk of bias for a variety of reasons, including industry funding and baseline differences between groups. We did not identify any economic evaluations.For subjective cure of SUI, we found moderate-quality evidence that ES is probably better than no active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.02). We found a similar result for cure or improvement of SUI (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.11), but the quality of evidence was lower. We are very uncertain if there is a difference between ES and sham treatment in terms of subjective cure because of the very low quality of evidence (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.38 to 12.73). For subjective cure or improvement, ES may be better than sham treatment (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.07). The effect estimate was 660/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 382/1000 with no active treatment (95% CI 538 to 805 women); and for sham treatment, 402/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 198/1000 with sham treatment (95% CI 202 to 805 women).Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be no difference in cure or improvement for ES versus PFMT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03), PFMT plus ES versus PFMT alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28) or ES versus vaginal cones (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21).Electrical stimulation probably improves incontinence-specific QoL compared to no treatment (moderate quality evidence) but there may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and PFMT (low quality evidence). It is uncertain whether adding electrical stimulation to PFMT makes any difference in terms of quality of life, compared with PFMT alone (very low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and vaginal cones in improving incontinence-specific QoL (low quality evidence). The impact of electrical stimulation on subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, compared with vaginal cones, PFMT plus vaginal cones, or drugs therapy, is uncertain (very low quality evidence).In terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, the available evidence comparing ES versus drug therapy or PFMT plus vaginal cones was very low quality and inconclusive. Similarly, comparisons of different types of ES to each other and of ES plus surgery to surgery are also inconclusive in terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL (very low-quality evidence).Adverse effects were rare: in total nine of the women treated with ES in the trials reported an adverse effect. We identified insufficient evidence to compare the risk of adverse effects in women treated with ES compared to any other treatment. We were unable to identify any economic data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base indicated that electrical stimulation is probably more effective than no active or sham treatment, but it is not possible to say whether ES is similar to PFMT or other active treatments in effectiveness or not. Overall, the quality of the evidence was too low to provide reliable results. Without sufficiently powered trials measuring clinically important outcomes, such as subjective assessment of urinary incontinence, we cannot draw robust conclusions about the overall effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults

BACKGROUND

Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence 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 10 December 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride.Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback.Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121).Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51).There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life.There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence).Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES.There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults

BACKGROUND

Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of: ES with non-implanted electrodes compared with placebo or any other active treatment for OAB; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other.

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 10 December 2014). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 eligible trials (3443 randomised participants). Thirty-three trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective change in OAB symptoms. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.Twenty-three trials (1654 participants) compared ES with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve in people receiving ES than with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment (relative risk (RR) for no improvement 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.63). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that similar numbers of people receiving ES and no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment experienced adverse effects.Eight trials (542 participants) compared ES with conservative treatment. Very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference between ES and PFMT or PFMT plus biofeedback in OAB symptoms (RR for no improvement 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.21 and 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57 respectively). There was no evidence of a difference between ES and conservative treatment with regard to adverse effects.Sixteen trials (894 participants) compared ES with drug treatment (probanthine, tolterodine, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, trospium chloride, terodiline). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than drug treatment (RR for no improvement 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90). Low-quality evidence suggested a greater risk of adverse effects with oxybutynin (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.49) and with tolterodine (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.89) than with ES. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between ES and trospium hydrochloride (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25).Eight trials (252 participants) compared ES combined with another treatment versus the other treatment alone, two trials (48 participants) compared ES plus conservative treatment with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment and six trials (361 participants) compared different types of ES. None of these comparisons had sufficient evidence to indicate any differences between the treatment groups in terms of OAB or adverse effects.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that ES improved OAB-related quality of life more than no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. There was insufficient evidence of any difference between ES and any other treatment with regard to quality of life.There was insufficient evidence to determine if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Electrical stimulation appeared to be more effective than both no treatment and drug treatment for OAB. There was insufficient evidence to determine if ES was more effective than conservative treatment or which type of ES was more effective. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

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

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.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria, comprising women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI); they compared PFMT added to another active treatment (585 women) with the same active treatment alone (579 women). The pre-specified comparisons were reported by single trials, except bladder training, which was reported by two trials, and electrical stimulation, which was reported by three trials. However, only two of the three trials reporting electrical stimulation could be pooled, as one of the trials did not report any relevant data. We considered the included trials to be at unclear risk of bias for most of the domains, predominantly due to the lack of adequate information in a number of trials. This affected our rating of the quality of evidence. The majority of the trials did not report the primary outcomes specified in the review (cure or improvement, quality of life) or measured the outcomes in different ways. Effect estimates from small, single trials across a number of comparisons were indeterminate for key outcomes relating to symptoms, and we rated the quality of evidence, using the GRADE approach, as either low or very low. More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in two trials comparing PFMT added to electrical stimulation to electrical stimulation alone, in women with SUI, but this was not statistically significant (9/26 (35%) versus 5/30 (17%); risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 5.38). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. There was moderate-quality evidence from a single trial investigating women with SUI, UUI or MUI that a higher proportion of women who received a combination of PFMT and heat and steam generating sheet reported a cure compared to those who received the sheet alone: 19/37 (51%) versus 8/37 (22%) with a RR of 2.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.73). More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in another trial comparing PFMT added to vaginal cones to vaginal cones alone, but this was not statistically significant (14/15 (93%) versus 14/19 (75%); RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. Only one trial evaluating PFMT when added to drug therapy provided information about adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.60; very low-quality evidence).With regard to condition-specific quality of life, there were no statistically significant differences between women (with SUI, UUI or MUI) who received PFMT added to bladder training and those who received bladder training alone at three months after treatment, on either the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Revised scale (mean difference (MD) -5.90, 95% CI -35.53 to 23.73) or on the Urogenital Distress Inventory scale (MD -18.90, 95% CI -37.92 to 0.12). A similar pattern of results was observed between women with SUI who received PFMT plus either a continence pessary or duloxetine and those who received the continence pessary or duloxetine alone. In all these comparisons, the quality of the evidence for the reported critical outcomes ranged from moderate to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found insufficient evidence to state whether or not there were additional effects by adding PFMT to other active treatments when compared with the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence (SUI, UUI or MUI) in women. These results should be interpreted with caution as most of the comparisons were investigated in small, single trials. None of the trials in this review were large enough to provide reliable evidence. Also, none of the included trials reported data on adverse events associated with the PFMT regimen, thereby making it very difficult to evaluate the safety of PFMT.