Cochrane · systematic review · CD001843
Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Anderson, CA, Omar, MI, Campbell, SE, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
IncontinenceAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
49
current version
GRADE rated
24
No studies
22
Included studies
NR
No studies 22 · 44.9%Ungraded 3 · 6.1%Very low 6 · 12.2%Low 11 · 22.4%Moderate 5 · 10.2%High 2 · 4.1%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Treatment of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment; for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: patients with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men ‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment; | RR 0.85 [0.6, 1.22] | 3 studies · 665 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Urinary Incontinence Score (ICI‐SF) ‐ after first year Treatment of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment; | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 391 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Adverse events Treatment of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment; | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 138 participants | High |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Treatment of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment; | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: Patients with postprostatectomy UI
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men ‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | RR 0.26 [0.09, 0.74] | 3 studies · 413 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Urinary Incontinence Score (ICIQ‐SF UI score) ‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 47 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Urinary Incontinence Quality of Life Score (ICIQ‐SF) ‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 47 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Adverse events Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | RR 0.58 [0.11, 2.9] | 1 study · 56 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment of UI after radical: combinations of treatments versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: patients with postprostatectomy UI
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men with 3 to 6 months Treatment of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | RR 2.85 [0.32, 25.07] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Urinary Incontinence Quality of Life Score (ICIQ‐SF) after 12 months Treatment of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events ‐ PFMT + anal EStim + BFB Treatment of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | RR 4.86 [0.24, 99.39] | 1 study · 138 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Economic Analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Treatment of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: Patients with postprostatectomy UI
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men within 6 to 12 months ‐ FES versus ExMI Treatment of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment | RR 2 [0.21, 19.23] | 1 study · 24 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Quality of Life Score (ICI‐Q‐SF) within 6 to 12 months ‐ PFMT + ExMI versus PFMT Treatment of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 24 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events PFMT + Anal EStim versus PFMT alone Treatment of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment | RR 5 [0.24, 102.3] | 1 study · 140 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Economic analysis using QALY Treatment of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men ‐ after 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | RR 0.32 [0.2, 0.51] | 2 studies · 373 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Quality of life score assessed using (ICI‐SF UI score) ‐ within 6 to 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men after 12 months ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF score) ‐ within 6 to 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after radical: combinations of treatments versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men within 6 to 12 months ‐ PFMT + anal EStim + biofeedback versus no treatment Prevention of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Quality of life Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) or (ICIQ‐ SF UI score) ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: combinations of treatments vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment (PFMT pre and post‐operation versus PFMT post‐operation) for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men after 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT pre and post‐operation versus PFMT post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 367 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Quality of Life Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) or (ICIQ‐SF UI score) after 12 months ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT pre and post‐operation versus PFMT post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT pre and post‐operation versus PFMT post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 102 participants | High |
Economic Analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT pre and post‐operation versus PFMT post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment (PFMT + penile vibration pre and post‐operation versus PFMT pre and post‐operation) for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men after 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT + penile vibration pre and post‐operation versus PFMT pre and post‐operation) | RR 1.4 [0.25, 7.77] | 1 study · 58 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Quality of life Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) or (ICIQ‐SF UI score) Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT + penile vibration pre and post‐operation versus PFMT pre and post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT + penile vibration pre and post‐operation versus PFMT pre and post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 68 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (PFMT + penile vibration pre and post‐operation versus PFMT pre and post‐operation) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after radical prostatectomy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men after 12 months ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of Life Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) within 6 to 12 months Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment vs another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment of UI after TURP: PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: Men with UI after TURP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after TURP: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1609 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Quality of life Score assessed using Score (ICIQ‐SF UI score) ‐ after 12 months Treatment of UI after TURP: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 397 participants | Low Downgraded: publication bias |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Treatment of UI after TURP: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Treatment of UI after TURP: PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prevention of UI after TURP: pre or post‐operative PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence
Population: All men after TURP
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of incontinent men ‐ within 3 to 6 months Prevention of UI after TURP: pre or post‐operative PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | RR 0.51 [0.14, 1.89] | 1 study · 48 participants | Very low Downgraded: publication bias |
Urinary Incontinence Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) or (ICIQ‐SF UI score) at 12 months ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after TURP: pre or post‐operative PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after TURP: pre or post‐operative PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported Prevention of UI after TURP: pre or post‐operative PFMT ± biofeedback vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |