Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23350826›Full record

Trial reportBJU international2013

Internet-based treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a randomised controlled study with focus on pelvic floor muscle training.

Malin Sjöström, Göran Umefjord, Hans Stenlund, Per Carlbring, Gerhard Andersson, Eva Samuelsson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJU international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

6 authors.

Malin SjöströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. malin.sjostrom@jll.se
Göran Umefjord
Hans Stenlund
Per Carlbring
Gerhard Andersson
Eva Samuelsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledWHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) affects 10-35% of women, and it is sometimes very distressful. Pelvic floor exercises are the first line of treatment, but access barriers or embarrassment may prevent women from seeking help. There is a need for new, simple, and effective ways to deliver treatment. Management of SUI without face-to-face contact is possible, and Internet-based treatment is a new, promising treatment alternative.

objectiveTo compare two treatment programmes for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) without face-to-face contact: one Internet-based and one sent by post. PATIENTS AND

methodsRandomised, controlled trial conducted in Sweden 2009-2011. Computer-generated block-randomisation, allocation by independent administrator. No 'blinding'. The study included 250 community-dwelling women aged 18-70 years, with SUI ≥1 time/week. Consecutive online recruitment. The women had 3 months of either; (i) An Internet-based treatment programme (124 women), including e-mail support and cognitive behavioural therapy assignments or (ii) A treatment programme sent by post (126). Both programmes focused mainly on pelvic floor muscle training. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: symptom-score (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form, ICIQ-UI SF) and condition-specific quality of life (ICIQ-Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, ICIQ-LUTSQoL). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (i) Patient Global Impression of Improvement, (ii) Incontinence aids, (iii) Patient satisfaction, (iv) Health-specific QoL (EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale), and (v) Incontinence episode frequency. Follow-up after 4 months via self-assessed postal questionnaires.

resultsIn all, 12% (30 women) were lost to follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed highly significant improvements (P < 0.001) with large effect sizes (>0.8) with both interventions, but there were no significant differences between groups in primary outcomes. The mean (sd) changes in symptom-score were: Internet 3.4 (3.4), Postal 2.9 (3.1) (P = 0.27). The mean (sd) changes in condition-specific QoL were: Internet 4.8 (6.1), Postal 4.6 (6.7) (P = 0.52). Compared with the postal-group, more participants in the Internet-group perceived they were much or very much improved (40.9% (43/105) vs 26.5% (30/113), P = 0.01), reported reduced usage of incontinence aids (59.5% (47/79) vs 41.4% (34/82), P = 0.02) and were satisfied with the treatment programme (84.8% (89/105) vs 62.9% (71/113), P < 0.001). Health-specific QoL improved in the Internet-group (mean change 3.7 (10.9), P = 0.001), but not in the postal-group (1.9 (13.0), P = 0.13). Overall, 69.8% (120/172) of participants reported complete lack of leakage or reduced number of leakage episodes by >50%.

conclusionsConcerning primary outcomes, treatment effects were similar between groups whereas for secondary outcomes the Internet-based treatment was more effective. Internet-based treatment for SUI is a new, promising treatment alternative.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyInternetFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPelvic FloorUrinary Incontinence, Stresscognitive behavioural therapyInternetpelvic floor muscle trainingrandomised controlled studyself-managementstress urinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID23350826
PMCPMC3798106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.