Systematic review of guidelines for urinary incontinence in women.

Introduction and Objective: Urinary incontinence in women is the subject of multiple recommendations all over the world. The aim of our study was to compare methodologies and search for inconsistencies in texts and grades in these guidelines.
Methods: Seventeen recommendations from different medical societies in English, French and German were included. Their methodologies were analyzed, including writing methods, cyclicity, level of evidence (LE) and grades. The recommendations were synthesized and inconsistencies in texts and grades were studied. The quality of recommendations was evaluated with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) scale.
Results: Methods, rigour and cyclicity varied depending on societies. LE and grades are broadly consensual for higher LE and grades and less so for lower LE and grades. The Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, the European Association of Urology, the International Consultation on Urological Diseases and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have an AGREE score ≥ 80 % (third quartile). Grading and textual inconsistencies are explained by the order of studies or the absence of high LE.
Conclusion: With the present study we closely explored comparatively the methods and semantics of recommendations for urinary incontinence in women.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Pauline Dewaele, Pierre Millet and Angeline Favre-Inhofer declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)