SynthesisBMJ open2019
Multifaceted self-management interventions for older women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Type 2 Diabetes Management Involving Healthcare Professionals in Primary Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development of a Complex Intervention for the Management of Urinary Incontinence Among Community-Dwelling Older Women.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Women's Knowledge of Bladder Health: What We Have Learned in the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesise the evidence for the multifaceted self-management interventions for older women with urinary incontinence (UI) and to understand the outcomes associated with these interventions.
designA systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify randomised controlled trials that investigated the effect of multifaceted self-management interventions for older women with UI.
methodsMEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts databases were searched (January 1990 to May 2019) using a systematic search strategy, complemented by manually screening the reference lists and citation indexes. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken independently. A narrative synthesis was undertaken in which studies, interventions and outcomes were examined based on the intervention components. The effect size and 95% CI were estimated from each study.
resultsA total of 13 147 citations were identified and 16 studies were included. There was no study rated as of high quality. Three types of multifaceted interventions were found: those that had an element of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME), those with bladder retraining and some with combination behavioural interventions. Outcome measures varied across studies. A statistically significant improvement in incontinence symptoms was reported in the intervention group compared with the control in 15 studies.
conclusionMultifaceted interventions that included PFME, bladder retraining or combination behavioural techniques appear to be useful in some settings for UI management in older women, but the quality of the evidence was poor and unclear. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the combination of components is superior to others in improving UI symptoms. There is a need for high-quality studies to confirm the effectiveness of these interventions and to identify comparative effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104010.
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.