Cochrane · systematic review · CD014799
Conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery
Johnson, EE, Mamoulakis, C, Stoniute, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · 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
21
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
10
Included studies
NR
No studies 10 · 47.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 19%Low 3 · 14.3%Moderate 3 · 14.3%High 1 · 4.8%
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
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction
Population: men with urinary incontinence following prostate surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective cure or improvement: patient‐reported as defined by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 102 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Condition‐specific quality of life: using validated questionnaires, > 6 to 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective cure or improvement: > 6 to 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 269 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant adherence to the intervention: as reported by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General quality of life: > 6 to 12 months Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants experiencing surface or skin‐related adverse events: e.g. skin reactions, bruising, hypersensitivity to gel Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of participants experiencing muscle‐related adverse events: e.g. soreness, discomfort, cramps, pain Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Electrical or magnetic stimulation versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction
Population: men with urinary incontinence following prostate surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective cure or improvement: patient‐reported as defined by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Condition‐specific quality of life: using validated questionnaires, > 6 to 12 months Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Objective cure or improvement: > 6 to 12 months Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant adherence to the intervention: as reported by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
General quality of life: > 6 to 12 months Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants experiencing surface or skin‐related adverse events: e.g. skin reactions, bruising, hypersensitivity to gel Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants experiencing muscle‐related adverse events: e.g. soreness, discomfort, cramps, pain Electrical or magnetic stimulation vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Combinations of conservative treatments versus no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction
Population: men with urinary incontinence following prostate surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective cure or improvement: patient‐reported as defined by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | RR 0.97 [0.79, 1.19] | 2 studies · 788 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Condition‐specific quality of life: using validated questionnaires, > 6 to 12 months Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 788 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Objective cure or improvement: > 6 to 12 months Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | MD 0.18 | 2 studies · 565 participants | High |
Participant adherence to the intervention: as reported by the trialists, > 6 to 12 months Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | RR 2.08 [0.78, 5.56] | 2 studies · 763 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
General quality of life: > 6 to 12 months Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 742 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants experiencing surface or skin‐related adverse events: e.g. skin reactions, bruising, hypersensitivity to gel Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 853 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants experiencing muscle‐related adverse events: e.g. soreness, discomfort, cramps, pain Combinations of conservative treatments vs no treatment, sham treatment or verbal/written instruction | RR 2.92 [0.31, 27.41] | 2 studies · 136 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |