Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19751517›Full record

Trial reportBMC women's health2009

Group treatments for sensitive health care problems: a randomised controlled trial of group versus individual physiotherapy sessions for female urinary incontinence.

S E Lamb, J Pepper, R Lall, E C Jørstad-Stein, M D Clark, L Hill, J Fereday-Smith

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC women's health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05719220 (The Effect of Group Preoperative Pelvic Floor Training on Transient Urinary Incontinence After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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.

NCT05719220 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Group Preoperative Pelvic Floor Training on Transient Urinary Incontinence After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Prospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2024 to 2028Enrolled100ConditionsBPH, Urinary IncontinenceArmsGroup preoperative pelvic floor training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Conservative Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Overactive bladder - 18 years - Part I.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S E LambWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. s.lamb@warwick.ac.uk.
J Pepper
R Lall
E C Jørstad-Stein
M D Clark
L Hill
J Fereday-Smith
University of Warwick · GBGeorge Eliot Hospital · GBWarwick Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to compare effectiveness of group versus individual sessions of physiotherapy in terms of symptoms, quality of life, and costs, and to investigate the effect of patient preference on uptake and outcome of treatment.

methodsA pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial in five British National Health Service physiotherapy departments. 174 women with stress and/or urge incontinence were randomised to receive treatment from a physiotherapist delivered in a group or individual setting over three weekly sessions. Outcome were measured as Symptom Severity Index; Incontinence-related Quality of Life questionnaire; National Health Service costs, and out of pocket expenses.

resultsThe majority of women expressed no preference (55%) or preference for individual treatment (36%). Treatment attendance was good, with similar attendance with both service delivery models. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in symptom severity or quality of life outcomes between the models. Over 85% of women reported a subjective benefit of treatment, with a slightly higher rating in the individual compared with the group setting. When all health care costs were considered, average cost per patient was lower for group sessions (Mean cost difference 52.91 pounds 95%, confidence interval ( 25.82 pounds- 80.00 pounds)).

conclusionIndications are that whilst some women may have an initial preference for individual treatment, there are no substantial differences in the symptom, quality of life outcomes or non-attendance. Because of the significant difference in mean cost, group treatment is recommended.

trial registrationTRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 16772662.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsQuality of LifeAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient PreferencePhysical Therapy ModalitiesProbabilityProfessional-Patient RelationsSeverity of Illness IndexSickness Impact ProfileSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID19751517
PMCPMC2754423
OpenAlexW1965519681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.