Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2006-01 (1), p.CD005654-CD005654
• Main Authors: Hay-Smith, E J C, Dumoulin, C
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biofeedback, Psychology; Exercise Therapy - methods; Female; Humans; Muscle Contraction - physiology; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Incontinence - rehabilitation; Urinary Incontinence, Stress - rehabilitation
• ISSN: 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005654

Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence. It is sometimes recommended for mixed and less commonly urge urinary incontinence. To determine the effects of pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence in comparison to no treatment, placebo or sham treatments, or other inactive control treatments. The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register was searched. The date of the most recent search was 1 December 2004. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials in women with stress, urge or mixed urinary incontinence (based on symptoms, signs, or urodynamics). One arm of the trial included pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). Another arm was a no treatment, placebo, sham, or other inactive control treatment arm. Trials were independently assessed for eligibility and methodological quality. Data were extracted then cross-checked. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins 2005). Trials were subgrouped by diagnosis. Formal meta-analysis was not undertaken because of study heterogeneity. Thirteen trials involving 714 women (375 PFMT, 339 controls) met the inclusion criteria, but only six trials (403 women) contributed data to the analysis. Most studies were at moderate to high risk of bias, based on the trial reports. There was considerable variation in interventions used, study populations, and outcome measures. Women who did PFMT were more likely to report they were cured or improved than women who did not. PFMT women also experienced about one fewer incontinence episodes per day. There were too few data to draw conclusions about effects on other outcomes such as condition specific quality of life. Of the few adverse effects reported, none were serious. The trials in stress urinary incontinent women which suggested greater benefit recruited a younger population and recommended a longer training period than the one trial in women with detrusor overactivity (urge) incontinence. Overall, the review provides some support for the widespread recommendation that PFMT be included in first-line conservative management programmes for women with stress, urge, or mixed, urinary incontinence. Statistical heterogeneity reflecting variation in incontinence type, training, and outcome measurement made interpretation difficult. The treatment effect might be greater in younger women (in their 40's and 50's) wi