Table 6: Studies on Caregiver-dependent Techniques for Urinary Incontinence^*.

Study, Year	Intervention	Study Design and Methods	Results	Limitations
Jirovec et al., 2001 (35)	Timed voiding	RCT 118 memory-impaired seniors living in the community with UI and having the assistance of a caregiver 6 months duration Outcome: Change in incontinence calculated as the percentage of time the patient was incontinent	Treatment group had significantly reduced incontinence from baseline (Z = −1.83, P < .05) but no significant difference between groups	No intention-to-treat analysis, allocation concealment unclear, no justification provided for sample size
Engberg et al., 2002 (36)	Prompted voiding	RCT (crossover) 19 cognitively impaired homebound seniors aged 60 years and older with UI and a full-time caregiver 8 weeks duration Outcome: change in incontinence frequency	Treatment group reduced daily incontinent episodes by 47% (SD 39.2) compared with 27% (SD 26.1) in the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .19)	Study not adequately powered to detect a difference (risk of type II error), allocation concealment unclear
Colling et al., 2003 (37)	Habit retraining “Pattern Urge Response Toileting” (PURT)	RCT (delayed control group) 106 community-dwelling, caregiver-dependent non-demented elderly persons ≥55 yrs with urge or mixed UI 6 weeks duration Outcome: change in incontinence frequency	Treatment group had fewer daily incontinent episodes (4.0, SD 2.6) than control group (3.4 SD 2.6), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .23)	Allocation concealment unclear, difficulty in recruiting an appropriate sample, patient/caregiver study retention problematic

^*RCT refers to randomized controlled trial; SD, standard deviation; UI, urinary incontinence.