Search

Background: Feedback and biofeedback (BF) are common adjuncts to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for women with stress, urgency, and mixed urinary incontinence (UI). An up to date systematic review of adjunctive feedback or BF was needed to guide practice and further research., Objectives: To determine whether feedback or BF add benefit to PFMT for women with UI., Methods: The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register was searched (May 2010) for randomised or quasi-randomized trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed UI regardless of cause, which compared PFMT versus PFMT augmented with feedback or BF. Two reviewers independently undertook eligibility screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Analysis was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (version 5.0.2)., Results: Twenty-four trials were included, and many were at moderate to high risk of bias. Women who received BF were less likely to report they were not improved (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86), although there was no statistically significant difference for cure (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81-1.05) and marginal statistical significance for leakage episodes (mean difference: -0.12 leaks/day, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.01). It is possible the results are confounded because women in the BF group commonly had more contact with the health professional than those in the PFMT only arm., Conclusion: BF may add benefit to PFMT but the observed effect could well be related to another variable, such as the amount of health professional contact rather than the BF per se., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line therapy for women with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (UI). Supervision and content of PFMT programmes is highly variable. The most effective approach to training is not known. The aim of the review was to compare the effects of different approaches to PFMT for women with UI. This was a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized or quasi-randomized trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed UI that compared one approach to PFMT with another. The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (17 May 2011) was searched. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were analyzed as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.2.2). From 574 records we included 21 trials (1490 women randomized) that addressed 11 comparisons. Comparisons made included: differences in training supervision (amount, individual versus group), in approach (one versus another, the effect of an additional component) and the exercise training (type of contraction, frequency of training). There were few trials or data in any comparison. In women with stress UI, 10% who received more health professional contact (weekly or twice-weekly group supervision plus individual appointments) did not report improvement compared to 43% who had individual appointments only (risk ratio for no improvement 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.55, four trials). While women receiving more contact were more likely to report improvement, the confidence interval was wide, and more than half of "controls" reported improvement. This finding, of subjective improvement in both active treatment groups, with more improvement reported by those receiving more health professional contact, was consistent throughout the review. Considerable caution is needed in interpreting the results of the review. Existing evidence is insufficient to make any strong recommendations about the best approach to PFMT. A consistent pattern of more self-reported improvement with more health professional contact was observed; the few data consistently showed that women receiving regular (e.g. weekly) supervision were more likely to report improvement than women doing PFMT with little or no supervision. The clinical rehabilitation impact is to offer women reasonably frequent health professional contact during supervised PFMT.

Background: Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly recommended physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence. It is also sometimes recommended for mixed and, less commonly, urge urinary incontinence. The supervision and content of pelvic floor muscle training programmes are highly variable, and some programmes use additional strategies in an effort to increase adherence or training effects., Objectives: To compare the effects of different approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and CINAHL, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 May 2011), and the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials or quasi-randomised trials in women with stress, urge or mixed urinary incontinence (based on symptoms, signs or urodynamics). One arm of the study included pelvic floor muscle training. Another arm was an alternative approach to pelvic floor muscle training, such as a different way of teaching, supervising or performing pelvic floor muscle training., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality. We extracted then cross-checked data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.2.2). We subgrouped trials by intervention., Main Results: We screened 574 records for eligibility and included 21 trials in the review. The 21 trials randomised 1490 women and addressed 11 comparisons. These were: differences in training supervision (amount, individual versus group), in approach (one versus another, the effect of an additional component) and the exercise training (type of contraction, frequency of training). In women with stress urinary incontinence, 10% of those who received weekly or twice-weekly group supervision in addition to individual appointments with the therapist did not report improvement post-treatment compared to 43% of the group who had individual appointments only (risk ratio (RR) for no improvement 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.55, four trials). Looking at this another way, 90% of those who had combined group and individual supervision reported improvement versus 57% of women receiving individual supervision only. While women receiving the combination of frequent group supervision and individual supervision of pelvic floor muscle training were more likely to report improvement, the confidence interval was wide, and more than half of the 'control' group (the women who did not get the additional weekly or twice-weekly group supervision) reported improvement. This finding, of subjective improvement in both active treatment groups, with more improvement reported by those receiving more health professional contact, was consistent throughout the review.We feel there are several reasons why caution is needed when interpreting the results of the review: there were few data in any comparison; a number of trials were confounded by comparing two arms with multiple differences in the approaches to pelvic floor muscle training; there was a likelihood of a relationship between attention and reporting of more improvement in women who were not blind to treatment allocation; some trials chose interventions that were unlikely to have a muscle training effect; and some trials did not adequately describe their intervention., Authors' Conclusions: This review found that the existing evidence was insufficient to make any strong recommendations about the best approach to pelvic floor muscle training. We suggest that women are offered reasonably frequent appointments during the training period, because the few data consistently showed that women receiving regular (e.g. weekly) supervision were more likely to report improvement than women doing pelvic floor muscle training with little or no supervision.

Background: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is an effective treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. Whilst most of the PFMT trials have been done in women with stress urinary incontinence, there is also some trial evidence that PFMT is effective for urgency urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence. Feedback or biofeedback are common adjuncts used along with PFMT to help teach a voluntary pelvic floor muscle contraction or to improve training performance., Objectives: To determine whether feedback or biofeedback adds further benefit to PFMT for women with urinary incontinence.To compare the effectiveness of different forms of feedback or biofeedback., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 13 May 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (based on symptoms, signs or urodynamics). At least two arms of the trials included PFMT. In addition, at least one arm included verbal feedback or device-mediated biofeedback., Data Collection and Analysis: Trials were independently assessed for eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by two reviewers and cross-checked. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the opinion of a third reviewer. Data analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (version 5.1.0). Analysis within subgroups was based on whether there was a difference in PFMT between the two arms that had been compared., Main Results: Twenty four trials involving 1583 women met the inclusion criteria; 17 trials contributed data to analysis for one of the primary outcomes. All trials contributed data to one or more of the secondary outcomes. Women who received biofeedback were significantly more likely to report that their urinary incontinence was cured or improved compared to those who received PFMT alone (risk ratio 0.75 , 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.86). However, it was common for women in the biofeedback arms to have more contact with the health professional than those in the non-biofeedback arms. Many trials were at moderate to high risk of bias, based on trial reports. There was much variety in the regimens proposed for adding feedback or biofeedback to PFMT alone, and it was often not clear what the actual intervention comprised or what the purpose of the intervention was., Authors' Conclusions: Feedback or biofeedback may provide benefit in addition to pelvic floor muscle training in women with urinary incontinence. However, further research is needed to differentiate whether it is the feedback or biofeedback that causes the beneficial effect or some other difference between the trial arms (such as more contact with health professionals).