ArticleBMJ open2024
Effectiveness of web-based interventions for women with urinary incontinence: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrinary incontinence (UI) is one of the most common chronic diseases among women, which can endanger their physical and mental health and incur a heavy financial burden on both individuals and society. Web-based interventions (WBIs) have been applied to manage women's UI, but their effectiveness has remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the effectiveness of WBIs on self-reported symptom severity, condition-specific quality of life, adherence to pelvic floor muscle training (primary outcomes) and other extensive secondary outcomes among women with UI. We also aimed to investigate whether intervention characteristics (format, interactivity and main technology) have impacts on the effectiveness of primary outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. 10 electronic databases will be comprehensively searched from their inception to 1 May 2024, along with grey literature searches and manual reviews of relevant reference lists to identify eligible randomised controlled trials. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed by two reviewers based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses will be conducted via Stata V.12.0. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses will be performed, and publication bias will be evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Subgroup analyses regarding intervention format, interactivity and main technology will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is needed for this review since no primary data are to be collected. The results of this review will help develop an optimal WBI for women with UI, thereby providing them with maximum benefits. The findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023435047.
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.