Cochrane · systematic review · CD012044
Physical activity for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
Silva, V, Grande, AJ, Peccin, MS · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
UrologyAMSTAR 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
12
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 91.7%Low 1 · 8.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
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
Physical activity compared to watchful waiting for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
Population: men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptom score for LUTS Physical activity vs watchful waiting | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Response rate Physical activity vs watchful waiting | RR 1.8 [0.81, 4.02] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Physical activity vs watchful waiting | RR 1 [0.59, 1.69] | 1 study · 56 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Physical activity as part of self‐management programme compared to watchful waiting for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
Population: men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptom score for LUTS Physical activity as part of self‐management programme vs watchful waiting | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 362 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Response rate Physical activity as part of self‐management programme vs watchful waiting | RR 2.36 [1.32, 4.21] | 2 studies · 362 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Physical activity as part of self‐management programme vs watchful waiting | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 362 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme compared to watchful waiting for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
Population: men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptom score for LUTS Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme vs watchful waiting | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Response rate Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme vs watchful waiting | RR 1.2 [0.74, 1.94] | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Physical activity as part of weight reduction programme vs watchful waiting | RR 1.63 [1.03, 2.57] | 1 study · 130 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Physical activity compared to alpha‐blockers for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
Population: men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Symptom score for LUTS Physical activity vs alpha‐blockers | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Response rate Physical activity vs alpha‐blockers | RR 0.8 [0.55, 1.15] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Physical activity vs alpha‐blockers | RR 0.86 [0.06, 12.89] | 1 study · 41 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |