Summary of findings 5. Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.
| Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ±biofeedback versus no treatment compared to for UI | ||||||
| Patient or population: All men after radical prostatectomy Intervention: Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ± biofeedback versus no treatment Comparison: | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Prevention of UI after radical: PFMT ±biofeedback versus no treatment | ||||||
| Number of incontinent men ‐ after 12 months | 321 per 1000 | 103 per 1000 (64 to 164) | RR 0.32 (0.2 to 0.51) | 373 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Quality of life score assessed using (ICI‐SF UI score) ‐ within 6 to 12 months | The mean quality of life score assessed using (ICI‐SF UI score) ‐ within 6 to 12 months in the intervention groups was 0.69 lower (3.19 lower to 1.81 higher) | 105 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |||
| Adverse events ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | |
| Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Allocation concealment is unclear for Filocamo 2005 which contributes 84.2% weightage 2 Funnel plot cannot be used as there are fewer than 10 trials 3 Sequence generation is unclear in Ribeiro 2008. Allocation concealment is unclear in both the trials taking part in the meta‐analysis 4 95% CI is very wide (‐3.19 to 1.81)