A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of pelvic floor therapies for urodynamic stress and mixed incontinence

Pilot Study of a Novel Online Comprehensive Pelvic Floor Program for Urinary Incontinence in Women

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Urinary incontinence (UI) is common in women and has a vast impact on quality of life (QOL), financial health, and work disability. Robust evidence demonstrates the efficacy of comprehensive conservative therapy (pelvic floor muscle training [PFMT], and behavioral and dietary modification) in the treatment of UI. However, numerous barriers impede access to this care, including limited specialized therapists, financial barriers, and scheduling obstacles. To address these barriers, we developed a novel comprehensive online pelvic floor program (oPFP).

METHODS

We performed a prospective study assessing continence and QOL outcomes in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urge urinary incontinence (UUI), or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) treated with oPFP between May 2019 and November 2022. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and following completion of the 2-month program using the validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) questionnaires, and 24-h bladder diary. Data were analyzed using linear, Poisson mixed models, or generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight women (2 SUI, 3 UUI, 23 MUI) were enrolled and 19 (2 SUI, 2 UUI, 15 MUI) completed the study. Following oPFP, participants showed significantly improved SUI domain scores (3.04 ± 0.19 vs 1.81 ± 0.23, p < 0.001), UPS reason score (2.52 ± 0.18 vs 2.05 ± 0.14, p = 0.003), IIQ-7 sum scores (5.16 ± 0.88 vs 3.07 ± 0.70, p = 0.038), and daily incontinence episodes (2.96 ± 0.60 vs 1.06 ± 0.29, p < 0.001). Mean patient-reported improvement was 5.4 ± 2.5 (ten-point Likert scale). Of respondents, 89% reported program satisfaction, ease of use, and would recommend the program to others.

CONCLUSION

The oPFP results in significant improvements to a variety of UI and QOL measures. This program provides an important UI treatment option and gives women greater access to effective conservative therapy.

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.

Basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence: the OPAL RCT

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence affects one in three women worldwide. Pelvic floor muscle training is an effective treatment. Electromyography biofeedback (providing visual or auditory feedback of internal muscle movement) is an adjunct that may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training (biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training) compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training for treating female stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence.

DESIGN

A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training, with a mixed-methods process evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative case study. Group allocation was by web-based application, with minimisation by urinary incontinence type, centre, age and baseline urinary incontinence severity. Participants, therapy providers and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Six-month pelvic floor muscle assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor.

SETTING

This trial was set in UK community and outpatient care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged ≥ 18 years, with new stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. The following women were excluded: those with urgency urinary incontinence alone, those who had received formal instruction in pelvic floor muscle training in the previous year, those unable to contract their pelvic floor muscles, those pregnant or < 6 months postnatal, those with prolapse greater than stage II, those currently having treatment for pelvic cancer, those with cognitive impairment affecting capacity to give informed consent, those with neurological disease, those with a known nickel allergy or sensitivity and those currently participating in other research relating to their urinary incontinence.

INTERVENTIONS

Both groups were offered six appointments over 16 weeks to receive biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training or basic pelvic floor muscle training. Home biofeedback units were provided to the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group. Behaviour change techniques were built in to both interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was urinary incontinence severity at 24 months (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score, range 0-21, with a higher score indicating greater severity). The secondary outcomes were urinary incontinence cure/improvement, other urinary and pelvic floor symptoms, urinary incontinence-specific quality of life, self-efficacy for pelvic floor muscle training, global impression of improvement in urinary incontinence, adherence to the exercise, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment and pelvic floor muscle function. The primary health economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year gained at 24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 300 participants were randomised per group. The primary analysis included 225 and 235 participants (biofeedback and basic pelvic floor muscle training, respectively). The mean 24-month International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score was 8.2 (standard deviation 5.1) for biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and 8.5 (standard deviation 4.9) for basic pelvic floor muscle training (adjusted mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75; p = 0.84). A total of 48 participants had a non-serious adverse event (34 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 14 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), of whom 23 (21 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 2 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group) had an event related/possibly related to the interventions. In addition, there were eight serious adverse events (six in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and two in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), all unrelated to the interventions. At 24 months, biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training was not significantly more expensive than basic pelvic floor muscle training, but neither was it associated with significantly more quality-adjusted life-years. The probability that biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training would be cost-effective was 48% at a £20,000 willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The process evaluation confirmed that the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group received an intensified intervention and both groups received basic pelvic floor muscle training core components. Women were positive about both interventions, adherence to both interventions was similar and both interventions were facilitated by desire to improve their urinary incontinence and hindered by lack of time.

LIMITATIONS

Women unable to contract their muscles were excluded, as biofeedback is recommended for these women.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a difference between biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and basic pelvic floor muscle training.

FUTURE WORK

Research should investigate other ways to intensify pelvic floor muscle training to improve continence outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN57746448.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training with and without electromyographic biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women: multicentre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone for stress or mixed urinary incontinence in women.

DESIGN

Parallel group randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

23 community and secondary care centres providing continence care in Scotland and England.

PARTICIPANTS

600 women aged 18 and older, newly presenting with stress or mixed urinary incontinence between February 2014 and July 2016: 300 were randomised to PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and 300 to PFMT alone.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in both groups were offered six appointments with a continence therapist over 16 weeks. Participants in the biofeedback PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme, incorporating electromyographic biofeedback during clinic appointments and at home. The PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme. PFMT programmes were progressed over the appointments.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported severity of urinary incontinence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF), range 0 to 21, higher scores indicating greater severity) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were cure or improvement, other pelvic floor symptoms, condition specific quality of life, women's perception of improvement, pelvic floor muscle function, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment, PFMT self-efficacy, adherence, intervention costs, and quality adjusted life years.

RESULTS

Mean ICIQ-UI SF scores at 24 months were 8.2 (SD 5.1, n=225) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 8.5 (SD 4.9, n=235) in the PFMT group (mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75, P=0.84). Biofeedback PFMT had similar costs (mean difference £121 ($154; €133), -£409 to £651, P=0.64) and quality adjusted life years (-0.04, -0.12 to 0.04, P=0.28) to PFMT. 48 participants reported an adverse event: for 23 this was related or possibly related to the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

At 24 months no evidence was found of any important difference in severity of urinary incontinence between PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and PFMT alone groups. Routine use of electromyographic biofeedback with PFMT should not be recommended. Other ways of maximising the effects of PFMT should be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN57756448.

Evaluation of the pelvic floor muscles training in older women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Background:

Urinary incontinence (UI) is defined as any involuntary urine loss that predominantly affects older women. There is evidence that pelvic floor muscles training (PFMT) program is effective on the treatment of pelvic floor (PF) dysfunctions and is considered to be first-line treatment. The evaluation of pelvic floor muscles (PFM) function and strength is central to validate the effectiveness of the training protocol in UI decrease. The Oxford Grading Scale and manometry are fundamental to evaluate the PFM function and strength.

Objective:

The aim of the study was to systematize the scientific evidence about the effects of PFMT in older women, assessing the PF function and strength through Oxford Grading Scale and manometry.

Methods:

The research of randomized controlled clinical trials was performed through B-on, EBSCO, PEDro, Pubmed, and SciELO data carried out from 2003 to 2016.

Results:

A total of 35 studies were identified, 26 of these were selected and fully analyzed. From the analyzed studies (n = 26), 20 were excluded for not meeting the criteria for inclusion, and only 6 studies were classified as high methodological quality, scoring an overall 4 points according the PEDro scale.

Conclusion:

The PFMT seems to be effective in treating UI in older women; the Oxford Grading Scale and manometry are considered the most reliable in the random and controlled clinical trials results. However, future investigations with high methodological quality with older women are necessary to support these results.

Clinical Guideline for Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

The "Japanese Clinical Guideline for Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," published in Japan in November 2013, contains two algorithms (a primary and a specialized treatment algorithm) that are novel worldwide as they cover female lower urinary tract symptoms other than urinary incontinence. For primary treatment, necessary types of evaluation include querying the patient regarding symptoms and medical history, examining physical findings, and performing urinalysis. The types of evaluations that should be performed for select cases include evaluation with symptom/quality of life (QOL) questionnaires, urination records, residual urine measurement, urine cytology, urine culture, serum creatinine measurement, and ultrasonography. If the main symptoms are voiding/post-voiding, specialized treatment should be considered because multiple conditions may be involved. When storage difficulties are the main symptoms, the patient should be assessed using the primary algorithm. When conditions such as overactive bladder or stress incontinence are diagnosed and treatment is administered, but sufficient improvement is not achieved, the specialized algorithm should be considered. In case of specialized treatment, physiological re-evaluation, urinary tract/pelvic imaging evaluation, and urodynamic testing are conducted for conditions such as refractory overactive bladder and stress incontinence. There are two causes of voiding/post-voiding symptoms: lower urinary tract obstruction and detrusor underactivity. Lower urinary tract obstruction caused by pelvic organ prolapse may be improved by surgery.

Outcome after conservative management for mixed urinary incontinence

AIM

Recommended initial treatment for mixed urinary incontinence involves behavioral therapy, and drug and pelvic floor muscle exercises. Our objective is to evaluate the outcome of these conservative treatments in our patients with mixed urinary incontinence.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted in patients with mixed urinary incontinence who were offered sequential conservative treatment modalities comprised of medication and physiotherapy. Outcome was defined as a score of 1 or less for questions 2 and 3 on the six-item Urodynamic Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and seven-item Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, in addition to clinical symptomatic improvement with no urgency, urge incontinence and voiding frequency of less than eight times per 24 h on a 3-day bladder diary after treatment. Treatment outcome of patients opting for medication plus physiotherapy (M + P) were analyzed against patients preferring medication only (M).

RESULTS

Sixty-two mixed urinary incontinent patients received an initial treatment with conservative measures with mean follow-up of 14 months. A total of 61.2% (30/49) and 56.3% (9/13) subjects had improved symptoms in the M + P and M group, respectively. There was significant improvement in UDI-6 total score in the M + P group after conservative treatment, despite no significant difference when compared to the M group. Only 6.45% required subsequent anti-incontinence surgery after conservative treatment, amongst whom only half showed improvement after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with medication and physiotherapy is highly recommended for patients with mixed urinary incontinence. Conservative measures should still precede any surgical intervention. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy.

Weighted vaginal cones for urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

For a long time pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) has been the most common form of conservative (non-surgical) treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Weighted vaginal cones can be used to help women to train their pelvic floor muscles. Cones are inserted into the vagina and the pelvic floor is contracted to prevent them from slipping out.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of vaginal cones in the management of female urinary stress incontinence (SUI).We wished to test the following comparisons in the management of stress incontinence: 1. vaginal cones versus no treatment; 2. vaginal cones versus other conservative therapies, such as PFMT and electrostimulation; 3. combining vaginal cones and another conservative therapy versus another conservative therapy alone or cones alone; 4. vaginal cones versus non-conservative methods, for example surgery or injectables.Secondary issues which were considered included whether:1. it takes less time to teach women to use cones than it does to teach the pelvic floor exercise; 2. self-taught use is effective;3. the change in weight of the heaviest cone that can be retained is related to the level of improvement;4. subgroups of women for whom cone use may be particularly effective can be identified.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 19 September 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2013), EMBASE (January 1988 to March 2013) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing weighted vaginal cones with alternative treatments or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality. Data were extracted by one reviewer and cross-checked by the other. Study authors were contacted for extra information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials involving 1806 women, of whom 717 received cones. All of the trials were small, and in many the quality was hard to judge. Outcome measures differed between trials, making the results difficult to combine. Some trials reported high drop-out rates with both cone and comparison treatments. Seven trials were published only as abstracts.Cones were better than no active treatment (rate ratio (RR) for failure to cure incontinence 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.94). There was little evidence of difference for a subjective cure between cones and PFMT (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13), or between cones and electrostimulation (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.87), but the confidence intervals were wide. There was not enough evidence to show that cones plus PFMT was different to either cones alone or PFMT alone. Only seven trials used a quality of life measures and no study looked at economic outcomes.Seven of the trials recruited women with symptoms of incontinence, while the others required women with urodynamic stress incontinence, apart from one where the inclusion criteria were uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides some evidence that weighted vaginal cones are better than no active treatment in women with SUI and may be of similar effectiveness to PFMT and electrostimulation. This conclusion must remain tentative until larger, high-quality trials, that use comparable and relevant outcomes, are completed. Cones could be offered as one treatment option, if women find them acceptable.

Vaginal cone therapy in patients with stress urinary incontinence

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the vaginal cone usage in patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treated by hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

METHODS

In this prospective controlled study, vaginal cone therapy is proposed to 22 postmenopausal patients with SUI having HRT who were admitted to Istanbul University, Faculty of Medicine Urogynecology Division. The vaginal cone therapy protocol consisted of one 40-min session per day over a 12-week period at standing position, and to push back the vaginal cone if they feel it slide for 15 times. Control group consisted of ten postmenopausal patients receiving only HRT. For the two groups, perineometry value, pad test, and 3 days average number of incontinence were assessed at the beginning and after 2 months of treatment.

RESULTS

In the vaginal cone group, in all parameters a statistically significant difference was observed toward improvement as compared to baseline (p < 0.01); there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the HRT group. While comparing between the mean differences of two groups, the average number of urinary leakage was decreased and perineometry value was statistically increased (t = 3.74, p < 0.001; t = 3.24, p < 0.01) in vaginal cone group rather than in the HRT group which was calculated from the urinary diary.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal cone could be an effective method of treatment in patients with SUI and may be a preferable treatment for patients who have problem to come to hospital and want to work independently at home.

Consumer satisfaction among patients and their general practitioners about involving nurse specialists in primary care for patients with urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a very common problem, but existing guidelines on UI are not followed. To bring care in line with guidelines, we planned an intervention to involve nurse specialists on UI in primary care and assessed this in a randomised controlled trial. Alongside this intervention, we assessed consumer satisfaction among patients and general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Patients' satisfaction with the care provided by either nurse specialists (intervention group) or GPs (control group), respectively, was measured with a self-completed questionnaire. GPs' views on the involvement of nurse specialists were measured in a structured telephone interview.

RESULTS

The patient satisfaction score on the care offered by nurse specialists was 8.4 (scale 1-10), vs. 6.7 for care-as-usual by GPs. Over 85% of patients would recommend nurse specialist care to their best friends and 77% of the GPs considered the role of the nurse specialist to be beneficial, giving it a mean score of 7.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample was relatively small and the stability of the results only provisionally established, substituting UI care from GP to nurse specialist appears to be welcomed by both patients and GPs. Small changes like giving additional UI-specific information and devoting more attention to UI (which had been given little attention before) would provide a simple instrument to stimulate patients to change their behaviour in the right direction.

Pelvic floor muscle training for urgency urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing physiotherapy modalities for the treatment of urge urinary incontinence (UUI). A systematic review was performed for primary studies of physiotherapy techniques for UUI published in English between 1996 and August 2010 in major electronic databases. Only randomized clinical trials that reported outcomes separately for women with UUI were included. Outcomes assessed were reduction in UUI, urinary frequency, and nocturia. Data from 13 full-text trials including the modalities of pelvic floor muscles exercises with or without biofeedback, vaginal electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, and vaginal cones were analyzed. The methodologic quality of these trials was fair. Significant improvement in UUI was reported for all physiotherapy techniques except vaginal cone therapy. There are insufficient data to determine if pelvic physiotherapy improves urinary frequency or nocturia. Evidence suggests that physiotherapy techniques may be beneficial for the treatment of UUI.

Feedback or biofeedback to augment pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is an effective treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. Whilst most of the PFMT trials have been done in women with stress urinary incontinence, there is also some trial evidence that PFMT is effective for urgency urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence. Feedback or biofeedback are common adjuncts used along with PFMT to help teach a voluntary pelvic floor muscle contraction or to improve training performance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether feedback or biofeedback adds further benefit to PFMT for women with urinary incontinence.To compare the effectiveness of different forms of feedback or biofeedback.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 13 May 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (based on symptoms, signs or urodynamics). At least two arms of the trials included PFMT. In addition, at least one arm included verbal feedback or device-mediated biofeedback.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were independently assessed for eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by two reviewers and cross-checked. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the opinion of a third reviewer. Data analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (version 5.1.0). Analysis within subgroups was based on whether there was a difference in PFMT between the two arms that had been compared.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials involving 1583 women met the inclusion criteria; 17 trials contributed data to analysis for one of the primary outcomes. All trials contributed data to one or more of the secondary outcomes. Women who received biofeedback were significantly more likely to report that their urinary incontinence was cured or improved compared to those who received PFMT alone (risk ratio 0.75 , 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.86). However, it was common for women in the biofeedback arms to have more contact with the health professional than those in the non-biofeedback arms. Many trials were at moderate to high risk of bias, based on trial reports. There was much variety in the regimens proposed for adding feedback or biofeedback to PFMT alone, and it was often not clear what the actual intervention comprised or what the purpose of the intervention was.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Feedback or biofeedback may provide benefit in addition to pelvic floor muscle training in women with urinary incontinence. However, further research is needed to differentiate whether it is the feedback or biofeedback that causes the beneficial effect or some other difference between the trial arms (such as more contact with health professionals).

Cost-effectiveness of interventions based on physical exercise in the treatment of various diseases: A systematic literature review

Objectives:The aim of this study was to review studies reporting cost-effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in treatment of various diseases.

Methods:Systematic literature search using several databases. Abstracts initially screened independently by two authors, full-text articles again evaluated by two authors, who decided whether an article should be included. Included were scientifically valid articles describing controlled studies that included an exercise-based intervention in the treatment of an established medical condition, and also reported on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, or its effect on the utilization of health services. Quality was assessed with an established approach.

Results:A total of 914 articles were identified, of them 151 were obtained for closer review. Sixty-five articles describing sixty-one studies were included. Most (82 percent) were randomized trials. Twenty-eight studies dealt with musculoskeletal disorders, fifteen with cardiology, four with rheumatic diseases, four with pulmonary diseases, three with urinary incontinence, and two with vascular disorders. There was one study each in the fields of oncology, chronic fatigue, endocrinology, psychiatry, and neurology. Exercise interventions in musculoskeletal disorders were deemed to be cost-effective in 54 percent, in cardiology in 60 percent, and in rheumatic diseases in 75 percent of the cases. There was some evidence that exercise might be cost-effective in intermittent claudication, breast cancer patients, diabetes, and schizophrenia.

Conclusions:The number of studies assessing cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in various diseases is still limited. The results show large variation but suggest that some exercise interventions can be cost-effective. Most convincing evidence was found for rehabilitation of cardiac and back pain patients; however, even in these cases, the evidence was partly contradictory.

Assessment of the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy

BACKGROUND

Policy makers, payers, and other stakeholders increasingly call for greater evidence of the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to identify and rate the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy and to report summary information on the findings from the reviewed studies.

DESIGN

This study was a targeted literature review and rating of relevant studies published in the last decade using a quality evaluation tool for economic studies.

MEASUREMENTS

The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to obtain quality scores.

RESULTS

Ninety-five in-scope studies were identified and rated using the QHES instrument. The average quality score was 82.2 (SD=15.8), and 81 of the studies received a score of 70 or higher, placing them in the "good" to "excellent" quality range. Investigators in nearly two thirds of the studies found the physical therapy intervention under investigation to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The small number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was a limitation of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the literature regarding the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy is very good, although the magnitude of this body of literature is small. Greater awareness of the strengths and limitations of cost analyses in physical therapy should provide guidance for conducting high-quality cost-effectiveness studies as demand increases for demonstrations of the value of physical therapy.

Challenges in designing a pragmatic clinical trial: the mixed incontinence -- medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial experience

BACKGROUND

Mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) is a common, bothersome condition in women. In MUI, the two subtypes of urinary incontinence that coexist are treated differently; stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is primarily treated surgically while urge urinary incontinence (UUI) is primarily treated medically. There is no evidence to guide the treatment for women with significant bother from both incontinence subtypes. Therefore, investigators of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (UITN) designed and initiated a randomized clinical trial comparing outcomes for two distinct initial treatment approaches for women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI): therapy initiated with surgery versus therapy initiated with nonsurgical treatment.

PURPOSE

The aim of this manuscript is to describe the challenges in planning and implementing this randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The mixed incontinence: medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial was designed as a practical or pragmatic clinical trial to establish the relative efficacy of two specific treatment approaches. The design presented many challenging decisions including: (1) selection of practical paradigm; (2) refining inclusion/ exclusion criteria to offer equipoise; (3) selection of feasibility sample size; (4) recruitment challenges for two divergent treatment approaches (medical vs. surgical), and (5) resolution of ethical and methodological issues.

RESULTS

MIMOSA recruitment was planned in two phases, starting with a 5-month pilot and feasibility phase followed by a full trial contingent on the outcome of the first phase. The feasibility portion of the MIMOSA trial started in November 2008. 1198 subjects were screened and approached for study enrollment, but only 27 consented to randomization. The feasibility study was halted due to lack of enrollment in March 2009.

LIMITATIONS

The challenges of this trial included a lack of information from subjects who did not enroll, increasing the difficulty of interpreting the feasibility phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful recruitment to a randomized trial that compares significantly different treatment approaches poses a challenge.

A randomised partially controlled trial to assess the impact of self-help vs. structured help from a continence nurse specialist in women with undiagnosed urinary problems in primary care

AIMS

To identify women in primary care aged 45-64 years with urinary problems using the Female Urinary Symptom Score (FUSS) assessment tool, and to compare the effectiveness of a self-help leaflet with structured help from a continence nurse.

METHODS

The women were sent a questionnaire and grouped according to FUSS score as mild moderate or severe. The mild group received no intervention. The moderate group was randomised into three: one received no intervention, one receiving a self-help leaflet and one receiving an offer of structured help. The severe group was randomised into two: structured help at a continence clinic or a self-help leaflet. The women were followed up on two occasions to assess effects of the interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 1175 women participated in the study and were categorised at baseline into mild (n = 764), moderate (n = 325) or severe (n = 86). Response rates to initial follow-up varied from 50% to 86% across the study. Intervention groups reported significant reduction in mean FUSS score ranging from 1.2 points (moderate leaflet group) to 7.8 points (severe structured help group). The two non-intervention groups reported low levels of FUSS change (mild + 0.7 and moderate non-intervention -0.4). There was a strong association between quality of life (QoL) and FUSS score, with improvement in QoL when FUSS score fell. At follow-up improvement was sustained.

CONCLUSION

The trial has shown that the FUSS questionnaire has potential for identifying women with bothersome urinary symptoms and can be utilised in primary care. Both leaflet and structured help were effective.

Weighted vaginal cones for urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor muscle training has long been the most common form of conservative treatment for stress urinary incontinence. Weighted vaginal cones can be used to help women to train their pelvic floor muscles. Cones are inserted into the vagina and the pelvic floor is contracted to prevent them slipping out.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of weighted vaginal cones in the treatment of women with urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group specialised register (to February 2001), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2001), EMBASE (January 1988 to August 2001) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing weighted vaginal cones with alternative treatments or no treatment in women with urinary incontinence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality. Data was extracted by one reviewer and cross checked by the others. Study authors were contacted for extra information.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies, involving 1126 women of whom 466 received cones, were included. All of the trials were small and in many the quality was hard to judge. Outcome measures differed between studies, making the results difficult to combine. Some studies reported high drop out rates with both cone and comparison treatments. Four of the studies recruited women with symptoms of stress incontinence without urodynamic confirmation. Six trials were only published as abstracts. Cones were better than no active treatment (RR for failure to cure incontinence 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93). There was little evidence of difference between cones and PFMT (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38) or electrostimulation (RR 1, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13), but the confidence intervals were wide. There was not enough evidence to show that that cones plus PFMT was different to either cones alone or PFMT alone. Only two studies used a Quality of Life measure and no study looked at economic outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This review provides some evidence that weighted vaginal cones are better than no active treatment in women with stress urinary incontinence and may be of similar effectiveness to PFMT and electrostimulation. This conclusion must remain tentative until further larger high quality studies are carried out using comparable and relevant outcome measures. Some women treated with cones, pelvic floor muscle training or electrostimulation drop out of treatment early. Therefore, cones should be offered as one option so that if women find them unacceptable they know there are other treatments available.