Pelvic floor muscle exercises plus biofeedback versus pelvic floor muscle exercises for patients with stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Amina Pulatova, N. Mamedaliyeva, Gulzhakhan Omarova, Gulfairuz Urazbayeva, Ainura Veliyeva
{"title":"Pelvic floor muscle exercises plus biofeedback versus pelvic floor muscle exercises for patients with stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Amina Pulatova, N. Mamedaliyeva, Gulzhakhan Omarova, Gulfairuz Urazbayeva, Ainura Veliyeva","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/13411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a widespread illness that mostly affects women, particularly those who have recently given birth or gone through menopause. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) plus biofeedback to PFME alone in treating SUI in female patients.\nMethods: We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception until February 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing patients who had undergone PFME plus biofeedback to PFME alone. For risk of bias-2 (RoB2) assessment, we used cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratio with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nResults: 15 RCTs were included, with a total of 788 patients with SUI. The overall effect estimate between PFME+BF and PFME alone groups favored the PFME+BF group in improving PFME strength (SMD=0.33, 95% CI [0.14 to 0.52], p=.0009) and did not favor either of the two groups for quality of life (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), leakage (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI [-0.37 to 0.17], p=0.47), pad weight test (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), cure rate (odd ratio [OR]=2.44, 95% CI [0.52 to 11.42, p=0.26), and social activity (SMD=0.66, 95% CI [-0.04 to 1.36], p=0.07).\nConclusion: BF addition to PRME improves cure rate and PFME strength without affecting leakage or quality of life. Healthcare providers must consider patient safety and comfort while choosing BF devices with PFME. SUI management strategies should include BF to improve results.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/13411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a widespread illness that mostly affects women, particularly those who have recently given birth or gone through menopause. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) plus biofeedback to PFME alone in treating SUI in female patients. Methods: We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception until February 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing patients who had undergone PFME plus biofeedback to PFME alone. For risk of bias-2 (RoB2) assessment, we used cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratio with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 15 RCTs were included, with a total of 788 patients with SUI. The overall effect estimate between PFME+BF and PFME alone groups favored the PFME+BF group in improving PFME strength (SMD=0.33, 95% CI [0.14 to 0.52], p=.0009) and did not favor either of the two groups for quality of life (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), leakage (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI [-0.37 to 0.17], p=0.47), pad weight test (SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 to 0.00], p=0.05), cure rate (odd ratio [OR]=2.44, 95% CI [0.52 to 11.42, p=0.26), and social activity (SMD=0.66, 95% CI [-0.04 to 1.36], p=0.07). Conclusion: BF addition to PRME improves cure rate and PFME strength without affecting leakage or quality of life. Healthcare providers must consider patient safety and comfort while choosing BF devices with PFME. SUI management strategies should include BF to improve results.
盆底肌锻炼加生物反馈与盆底肌训练治疗压力性尿失禁患者的比较:随机对照试验的系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:压力性尿失禁(Stress urinary incontinence, SUI)是一种广泛存在的疾病,主要影响妇女,特别是那些刚刚分娩或经历更年期的妇女。本荟萃分析的目的是比较盆底肌运动(PFME)加生物反馈与PFME单独治疗女性SUI患者的有效性。方法:系统地检索了6个电子数据库(PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science),检索时间从成立到2022年2月7日。我们纳入了随机对照试验(rtc),比较了PFME +生物反馈与PFME单独治疗的患者。对于偏倚风险(RoB2)评估,我们使用cochrane偏倚风险评估工具。连续资料合并为标准化均差(SMD),二分类资料合并为优势比,其对应的95%置信区间(CI)。结果:纳入15项rct,共纳入788例SUI患者。PFME+BF组和单独PFME组在改善PFME强度(SMD=0.33, 95% CI [0.14 ~ 0.52], p= 0.0009)方面的总体效果估计有利于PFME+BF组,而在改善生活质量(SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 ~ 0.17], p=0.47)、膀胱重量测试(SMD=-0.22, 95% CI [-0.44 ~ 0.00], p=0.05)、治愈率(奇比[OR]=2.44, 95% CI [0.52 ~ 11.42], p=0.26)和社交活动(SMD=0.66,95% CI [-0.04 ~ 1.36], p=0.07)。结论:BF加入PRME可提高PFME的治愈率和强度,且不影响渗漏和生活质量。医疗保健提供者在选择带PFME的BF设备时必须考虑患者的安全性和舒适性。SUI管理策略应包括BF以改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of General Medicine
Electronic Journal of General Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
79
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信