SynthesisPloS one2025
The effect of conservative non-pharmacological interventions on the management of urinary incontinence in older adults living with frailty: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnitude and factors associated with urinary incontinence among postpartum women in Northwest Ethiopia.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026Article
- Perspectives of frail older adults and family caregivers on Urinary Incontinence interventions: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary incontinence (UI) is highly prevalent among older adults with frailty, impacting function, quality of life and risk of long-term care admission.
objectiveTo systematically review and synthesise the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of conservative non-pharmacological interventions on the management of UI in older adults aged ≥ 65 years living with frailty.
methodsFive databases (Cochrane Library, Medline (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCO)) were searched from inception to April 2024 for RCTs that evaluated conservative non-pharmacological interventions for UI in older adults living with frailty. Two independent reviewers screened records, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) Tool and Level of Evidence was summarised using GRADE guidelines. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model or narrative synthesis were performed as appropriate.
resultsTwelve RCTs, including 1,580 participants, with medium to high risk of bias were included. Conservative non-pharmacological interventions (categorised as single component or multicomponent interventions) resulted in a non-statistically significant reduction of objective measures of UI (6 RCTs, g = -0.39, p = 0.090; pooled effect size, with CI = -0.39 [-0.832, 0.060], I2 = 85.26%, with very low certainty of evidence). Improvements in functional ability were not found to be statistically significant (5 RCTs, g = 0.20, p = 0.39, pooled effect size, with CI = 0.20 [- 0.251, 0.642], I2 = 85.87%, and very low certainty of evidence). The interventions did not result in adverse events. Studies did not evaluate caregiver quality of life.
conclusionsVery low-quality evidence found that conservative non-pharmacological interventions had beneficial but not statistically significant effects on objective UI and functional ability. Due to the high incidence of intervening illnesses and mortality in older adults living with frailty, it is recommended that future studies assess the effect of implementing tailored interventions addressing modifiable risk factors using more appropriate study design and outcome measures. REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42022316287; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
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.