Cochrane · systematic review · CD012367
Conservative interventions for treating functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Buckley, BS, Sanders, CD, Spineli, L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · 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
54
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
33
Included studies
NR
No studies 33 · 61.1%Ungraded 2 · 3.7%Very low 17 · 31.5%Low 2 · 3.7%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
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo (sham TENS) for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 3 to 18 years with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence after 7 to 20 weeks' treatment Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | RR 4.89 [1.68, 14.21] | 3 studies · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 78 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs placebo (sham TENS) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy versus urotherapy alone for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 3 to 17 years with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence after 12 months of treatment Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | RR 2.36 [0.65, 8.53] | 3 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Frequency of incontinence episodes at 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy versus urotherapy alone for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence at 6 to 12 months after 6 months treatment Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | RR 1.13 [0.87, 1.45] | 3 studies · 151 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy vs urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 133 participants | Ungraded |
Timer watch plus standard urotherapy versus standard urotherapy alone for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 5 to 14 years with overactive bladder and at least one episode of daytime urinary incontinence per week
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence after 3 months of treatment Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | RR 17.77 [1.08, 291.82] | 1 study · 58 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes at 3 months Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | MD 2.9 [1.78, 4.02] | 1 study · 58 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Timer watch plus standard urotherapy vs standard urotherapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | RR 1.11 [0.73, 1.68] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy versus pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 5 to 15 years with dysfunctional elimination syndrome, 41/59 with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence at 12 months (9 months after 3 months of treatment) Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | RR 1.05 [0.72, 1.52] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes at 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training without biofeedback but with standard urotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pelvic floor muscle training versus anticholinergics for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 5‐14 years with daytime urinary incontinence or post‐micturition dribbling
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence at end of treatment or 1 month after 3 months of treatment Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | RR 1.92 [1.17, 3.15] | 2 studies · 86 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 86 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Pelvic floor muscle training vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 47 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus anticholinergics for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 4 to 17 years with daytime urinary incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence at 3 months Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | RR 0.81 [0.05, 12.5] | 2 studies · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 61 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback versus anticholinergics for functional daytime urinary incontinence in children
Population: children aged 6 to 12 years with overactive bladder with urge incontinence
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence at 12 months after 6 months of treatment Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | RR 1.02 [0.58, 1.78] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Frequency of incontinence episodes Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life measurements Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse effects Voiding education with uroflowmetry and feedback vs anticholinergics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Ungraded |