Summary of findings 11. Conventional ES plus PFMT versus dynamic ES plus PFMT.
| Conventional ES plus PFMT versus dynamic ES plus PFMT | ||||||
| Patient or population: women with stress urinary incontinence Setting: home (Germany) Intervention: conventional ES plus PFMT Comparison: dynamic ES plus PFMT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with dynamic ES plus PFMT | Risk with conventional ES plus PFMT | |||||
| Cure: number of women with self‐reported continence | Not reported | |||||
| Improvement: number of women with self‐reported improvement in SUI (cured or improved) (perception of bother of UI symptoms) assessed with: change in VAS Scale from: 0 to 10 Follow‐up: mean 12 weeks | — | MD 0.7 higher (0.83 lower to 2.23 higher) | — | 61 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c | — |
| Incontinence‐specific quality of life assessed with: change in King's Health Questionnaire scores (range of possible scores: 0‐100) Follow‐up: mean 12 weeks | — | MD 4.1 points higher (1.43 higher to 6.77 higher) | — | 61 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c | Scores indicate greater quality of life in the dynamic ES group |
| Adverse effects ‐ not reported | Not reported | |||||
| Cost‐effectiveness ‐ not reported | Not reported | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; ES: electrical stimulation; MD: mean difference; PFMT: pelvic floor muscle training; SUI: stress urinary incontinence; UI: urinary incontinence; VAS: visual analogue scale. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded two levels due to very serious risk of bias (high risk of selection and attrition bias). bDowngraded one level due to serious indirectness (measures change in scores instead of actual scores). cDowngraded two levels due to very serious imprecision (single trial, small sample, wide confidence intervals around estimate of effect).