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
  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

Electrical stimulation vs PFMT plus vaginal cones

It is very uncertain whether electrical stimulation changes subjective cure or improvement 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 1.53 [1.08, 2.18]
  2 studies · 123 participants
  Very low

Electrical stimulation vs PFMT plus vaginal cones

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