What do systematic reviews say?

Hypocaloric nutrition vs control

• Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically‐ill adults 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  11 studies · 2942 participants
  Very low

Hypocaloric nutrition vs control

• Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically‐ill adults 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  10 studies · 2804 participants
  Very low

Hypocaloric nutrition vs control

• Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically‐ill adults 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  12 studies · 3000 participants
  Very low

One-to-one advice on sugar restriction: detailed information on the sugar content of foods, with instruction to refrain from sugar-containing foods between meals and to reduce sugar in main meals (6-week sugar restriction) vs No advice on sugar restriction

• One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 weeks
  Table 5, mean (SD) intakes/day between meals: intervention 6.7 (1.9) baseline, 0.8 (1.0) at 3 weeks, 0.9 (1.0) at 6 weeks, 5.6 (3.0) at 12 weeks; control 5.3 (2.3), 5.2 (2.9), 4.6 (3.5), 4.7 (1.5). Significant…
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

One-to-one advice on sugar restriction: detailed information on the sugar content of foods, with instruction to refrain from sugar-containing foods between meals and to reduce sugar in main meals (6-week sugar restriction) vs No advice on sugar restriction

• One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 weeks
  Table 5, mean (SD) intakes/day at main meals: intervention 2.8 (0.5) baseline, 0.7 (0.7) at 3 weeks, 0.8 (0.9) at 6 weeks, 2.3 (0.8) at 12 weeks; control 1.9 (1.1), 1.9 (1.2), 1.9 (1.1), 2.0 (0.9). Significant…
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

One-to-one advice on sugar restriction: detailed information on the sugar content of foods, with instruction to refrain from sugar-containing foods between meals and to reduce sugar in main meals (6-week sugar restriction) vs No advice on sugar restriction

• One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 weeks
  Table 5, total mean (SD) intakes/day: intervention 9.5 (1.9) baseline, 1.6 (1.4) at 3 weeks, 1.8 (1.5) at 6 weeks, 7.8 (3.5) at 12 weeks; control 7.2 (2.6), 7.1 (3.7), 6.5 (4.2), 6.7 (2.2). Significant reduction versus…
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation vs No active treatment (control)

Electrical stimulation probably leads to higher cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with no active treatment (moderate certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.31 [1.06, 5.02]
  2 studies · 101 participants
  Moderate

Electrical stimulation vs sham

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with pelvic floor muscle training (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.51 [0.16, 1.63]
  4 studies · 143 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in improvement: number of women with self‐reported improvement in SUI… compared with pelvic floor muscle training (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.85 [0.7, 1.03]
  7 studies · 244 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 93 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in adverse effects compared with pelvic floor muscle training (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5 [0.25, 99.16]
  3 studies · 121 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Electrical stimulation vs vaginal cones alone

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with vaginal cones (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.04 [0.7, 1.54]
  3 studies · 157 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs vaginal cones alone

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in subjective cure or improvement compared with vaginal cones (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.09 [0.97, 1.21]
  5 studies · 331 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs vaginal cones alone

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 96 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs vaginal cones alone

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in adverse effects compared with vaginal cones (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.54 [0.11, 2.7]
  1 study · 52 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs No active treatment (control)

Electrical stimulation may leads to higher improvement: number of women with self‐reported improvement in SUI… compared with no active treatment (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.73 [1.41, 2.11]
  5 studies · 347 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs vaginal cones alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Electrical stimulation vs PFMT plus vaginal cones

It is very uncertain whether electrical stimulation changes cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with PFMT plus vaginal cones (very low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.45 [0.96, 2.2]
  2 studies · 123 participants
  Very low