ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about non-surgical interventions for urinary incontinence in women?
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of nonsurgical, minimally or noninvasive therapies for urinary incontinence due to neurogenic bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary incontinence is a highly prevalent condition that impacts self-esteem and overall quality of life. Many non-surgical treatment options are available, ranging from pharmacological approaches to pelvic exercises. We aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding these non-surgical interventions. DESIGN AND
settingReview of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP).
methodsA sensitive search was conducted to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors.
resultsWe included 20 Cochrane systematic reviews: 4 assessing methods of vesical training, 3 evaluating pharmacological interventions, 4 studying pelvic floor muscle training approaches and 9 aimed at other alternatives (such as urethral injections, weighted vaginal cone use, acupuncture, biostimulation and radiofrequency therapy). The reviews found that the evidence regarding the benefits of these diverse interventions ranged in quality from low to high.
conclusionsThis review included 20 Cochrane systematic reviews that provided evidence (of diverse quality) for non-pharmacological interventions for patients with urinary incontinence. Moderate to high quality of evidence was found favoring the use of pelvic floor muscle training among women with urinary incontinence. To establish solid conclusions for all the other comparisons, further studies of good methodological quality are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.