Summary of findings 10. Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.
| Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment compared to (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) for UI | ||||||
| Patient or population: All men after radical prostatectomy Intervention: Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment Comparison: Pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| (pre‐operative PFMT + electrical stimulation versus pre‐operative PFMT) | Prevention of UI after radical: one active treatment versus another active treatment | |||||
| Number of incontinent men after 12 months ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | |
| Quality of Life Score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF) within 6 to 12 months | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 34 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 | |
| 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 | ||||||
| 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 2 Not applicable 3 95% CI very wide (‐3.13 to 4.13) 4 Funnel plot cannot be used as there were fewer than 10 trials