Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106164›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.

K F Hunter, K N Moore, D J Cody, C M A Glazener

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. [Stress urinary incontinence in men].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Slings in iatrogenic male incontinence: Current status.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2010
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K F HunterFaculty of Nursing/Geriatric Services, University of Alberta/Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
K N Moore
D J Cody
C M A Glazener
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary incontinence is common after both radical prostatectomy and transurethral resection. Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, electrical stimulation, compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation or a combination of methods.

objectivesTo assess the effects of conservative managements for urinary incontinence prostatectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (searched 2 July 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2004), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2004), PsycLIT (January 1984 to January 2004), ERIC (January 1984 to January 2004), the reference lists of relevant articles, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted investigators to locate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence after prostatectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. MAIN

resultsTen trials met the inclusion criteria, eight trials amongst men after radical prostatectomy, one trial after transurethral resection of prostate and one after either operation. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. The trials were of moderate quality and data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Confidence intervals were wide: it was not possible to reliably identify or rule out a useful effect. There was some support from five trials for pelvic floor muscle training with biofeedback being better than no treatment or sham treatment in the short term for men after radical prostatectomy: relative risk for incontinence with pelvic floor muscle training and biofeedback versus no treatment: 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.93). Analysis of other conservative interventions such as pelvic floor muscle training alone, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and rectal electrical stimulation, or combinations of these interventions were inconclusive. There were too few data to determine effects on incontinence after transurethral resection of the prostate. The findings should be treated with caution as there were few studies, all of moderate quality. Men in one trial reported a preference for one type of external compression device compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remains undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified. Men's symptoms tended to improve over time, irrespective of management. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThe value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence remains uncertain. There may be some benefit of offering pelvic floor muscle training with biofeedback early in the postoperative period immediately following removal of the catheter as it may promote an earlier return to continence. Long-term incontinence may be managed by external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyExercise TherapyHumansMaleProstatectomyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrinary Incontinence

Identifiers

PMID15106164
OpenAlexW4249724738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.