Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of pelvic floor muscle training combined with another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone in the management of women with urinary incontinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 February 2013), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2013 Week 9), CINAHL (January 1982 to 5 March 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 30 May 2013), WHO ICTRP (searched 3 June 2013) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with two or more arms in women with clinical or urodynamic evidence of stress urinary incontinence, urgency urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. One arm of the trial included PFMT added to another active treatment; the other arm included the same active treatment alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality and resolved any disagreement by discussion or consultation with a third party. We extracted and processed data in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Other potential sources of bias we incorporated into the 'Risk of bias' tables were ethical approval, conflict of interest and funding source.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials met the eligibility criteria for inclusion, comprising women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), and they compared PFMT added to another active treatment (494 women) with the same active treatment alone (490 women). The pre-specified comparisons were reported by single trials except electrical stimulation which was reported by two trials. However, the two trials reporting electrical stimulation could not be pooled as one of the trials did not report any relevant data. We considered the included trials to be at unclear risk of bias for most of the domains, predominantly due to the lack of adequate information in a number of trials. This affected our rating of the quality of evidence. The majority of the trials did not report the primary outcomes specified in the review (cure/improvement, quality of life) or measured the outcomes in different ways. Effect estimates from small, single trials across a number of comparisons were indeterminate for key outcomes relating to symptoms and we rated the quality of evidence, using the GRADE approach, as either low or very low. There was moderate-quality evidence from a single trial investigating women with SUI, UUI or MUI that a higher proportion of women who received a combination of PFMT and heat and steam generating sheet reported cure compared to those who received the sheet alone: 19/37 (51%) versus 8/37 (22%) with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.73). More women reported cure or improvement of incontinence in another trial comparing PFMT added to vaginal cones to vaginal cones alone: 14/15 (93%) versus 14/19 (75%), but this was not statistically significant (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.71). We judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. Only one trial evaluating PFMT when added to drug therapy provided information about adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.60; very low-quality evidence).With regard to condition-specific quality of life, there were no statistically significant differences between women (with SUI, UUI or MUI) who received PFMT added to bladder training and those who received bladder training alone at three months after treatment either on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Revised scale (mean difference (MD) -5.90, 95% CI -35.53 to 23.73) or on the Urogenital Distress Inventory scale (MD -18.90, 95% CI -37.92 to 0.12). A similar pattern of results was observed between women with SUI who received PFMT plus either a continence pessary or duloxetine and those who received the continence pessary or duloxetine alone. In all these comparisons, the quality of the evidence for the reported critical outcomes ranged from moderate to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found insufficient evidence to state whether or not there were additional effects of adding PFMT to other active treatment when compared with the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence (SUI, UUI or MUI) in women. These results should be interpreted with caution as most of the comparisons were investigated in small, single trials. None of the trials in this review were large enough to provide reliable evidence. Also, none of the included trials reported data on adverse events associated with the PFMT regimen, thereby making it very difficult to evaluate the safety of PFMT.