ArticleBMC women's health2024
Minimum important difference of the ICIQ-UI SF score after self-management of urinary incontinence.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Standing Postural Balance Control in Women with and Without Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Therapeutic FEMANEA® for Women with Stress and Mixed Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Trial
- Associations between psychological and trauma-related factors and urinary incontinence severity and treatment response among women veterans.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Trial
- Remote Access to Urinary Incontinence Treatments for Women Veterans: The PRACTICAL Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Continence App® Impact on Puerperal Women's Knowledge, Attitude and Practice: Randomized Clinical Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2024Trial
- Pelvic floor muscle training in female functional fitness exercisers: an assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial.British journal of sports medicine · 2024Trial
- A Nordic perspective on female stress urinary incontinence care: Lessons for shared clinical practice.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Review
- Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of the Intibia System in Urge Urinary Incontinence: Quality-of-Life Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and Adherence Determinants of Digital Pelvic Floor Interventions in Pregnancy and Postpartum: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Optimizing remote access to Urinary Incontinence Treatments for Women Veterans: Identifying salient features of participants' experiences with two delivery modalities.Continence (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Understanding Barriers to Care for Urinary Incontinence Among a Contemporary Cohort of Women.The Journal of urology · 2026Article
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonly Used Urinary Incontinence Questionnaires-How to Correctly Choose Questionnaire in Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate clinically relevant improvement after conservative self-management of urinary incontinence via a mobile app. It further aimed to establish Minimum Important Differences (MIDs) based on the severity and type of urinary incontinence.
methodsData was collected in a prospective cohort study that evaluated the freely available app Tät®. The app provided pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and life-style advice. Non-pregnant, non-postpartum women (≥ 18 years) who downloaded the app to treat urinary incontinence were included, if they completed the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) question at the 3-month follow-up (n = 1,733). Participants answered the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF) at baseline and after 3 months. The score change was analysed for correlation (Spearman) with the PGI-I. We then analysed one-way ANOVAs to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups based on the answers to the PGI-I. The MID was set to the mean change of the group that selected the answer "a little better" to the PGI-I question.
resultsThe one-way ANOVA showed significant differences between PGI-I groups (p < 0.001). The MID for the general group was set to 1.46 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.26-1.67). In the sub-group analyses, a MID for the group with slight incontinence could not be determined. For the group with moderate severity the MID was determined to be 1.33 (95% CI 1.10-1.57) and for the severe/very severe group it was 3.58 (95% CI 3.08-4.09). Analysis of different types of incontinence showed no difference in MIDs.
conclusionsThe MID for self-management via a mobile app was lower than previously established MIDs, but differed depending on baseline severity. This study shows that MIDs need adjustment for baseline severity and treatment intensity when interpreting clinical trial results. If using MIDs as exact numbers, the study population and the treatment must be comparable.
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.