Table 3.
Study outcome.
| Study Name | Scales Used for Measuring Outcomes | Risk of Bias | Age (Years) | Result for Muscle Contraction | Result for Endurance | Result for Urinary Incontinence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gumussoy et al. [16] 2021 | Pad test, 3-day bladder diary I Qol PFMC with a perineometer and Modified Oxford Scale |
Some concern. | 50.92 years (SD 8.88). | Pelvic floor muscle contraction force significantly increased in both groups. | Both groups achieved reductions in urine loss during treatment. -The rate of decrease in pad test values of the EMG-BF + ExMI group was higher. - Significant differences in the number of urinations on a daily basis (9 vs. 8 for the EMG-BF and 9 vs. 7 in the EMG − BF + ExMI group. |
|
| Dumoulin et al. [15] 2020 | %reduction in UI episodes in 1 year, 7-day bladder diary Qol |
Low risk. | Age, 67.9 [5.8] years | Significant reduction in leakage episode frequency at 12 weeks and 1 year for both groups’ median percentage reduction in urinary incontinence episodes at 1 year of 70% in individual PFMT compared with a 74% reduction in group-based PFMT. | ||
| Weber-Razek et al. [1] | RUIS, KHQ | Low risk. | Mean (Range): 68.77 (45 to 78) |
Statistical improvement in urinary incontinence severity in PFMT | ||
| Farzinmehr et al. [9] | VAS, I-QOL | Low risk. | Range: 36 to 48 |
WBVT was effective in PFM strength similar to PFMT. | WBVT was effective in reducing the severity of incontinence similar to PFMT. Increasing I-QOL questionnaire score. No significant difference was observed between the WBVT and PFMT groups. |
|
| Dumoulin et al. [10] | Pad test, VAS, UDI, IIQ, pelvic floor muscle dynamometer |
Some concern. | <45 | No significant improvement was observed between the PFMT, PFM + AT, and control group. | Significant improvement was observed in the PFMT and PFM + AT group compared with control. | |
| Hagen et al. [11] | ICIQ-UI SF, PGII | Some concern. No objective measure of urinary leakage. |
Mean (SD) PFMT + Biofeedback: 48.2(11.6) PFMT: 47.3(11.4) |
No significant difference was found between the PFMT + biofeedback (8.5%) and PFMT group (6%) at 6 months. | No clinical or significant difference was observed between PFMT + biofeedback and PFMT groups. 60% in the PFMT + biofeedback and 62.6% in the PFMT group reported improvement in symptoms at 24 months. |
|
| Ahlund et al. [4] | BFLUT Symptoms Module ICIQ FLUTS Perineometer OGS |
Low risk both groups received instructions on how to contract PFM and, vaginal palpation. |
Mean (SD) 33 (3.6) |
Muscle strength: No statistically significant difference was observed between PFMT and Control group. However, a significant increase was observed from baseline in both groups. |
No significant difference was observed between PFMT and Control groups. However, there was an increase in endurance from baseline in both groups. | Significant improvement was observed in both PFMT and control group from baseline. |
| Castro et al. [3] | Pad test I-QOL OGS |
Low risk. | Mean ± SD PFMT: 56.2 ± 12.5 ES: 55.2 ± 12.8 VC: 52.6 ± 11.2 Control: 52.6 ± 11.2 |
Significant improvement was observed in the PFMT compared with the ES and VC groups. | Significant decrease in pad weight or improvement in urinary leakage in PFMT, ES, and VC group compared with control. However, no significant difference between ES, VC, and PFMT. |
|
| Jahromi et al. [7] | QUID ICIQ Self-esteem questionnaires |
High risk. | 60–74 years | Significant difference was observed between the PFMT and the control group for frequency of urine leakage. | ||
| Gameiro et al. [8] | VAS Pad test Perineometer |
Low risk. | Mean VWC: 49 PFMT 48 |
No statistical difference Was observed between the VWC and PFMT group. |
Significant improvement was observed from baseline in both the groups at 6 months but not at 12 months. NS difference between the VWC and PFMT group. |
|
| Wagg et al. [14] | EuroQoL Questionnaire EQ5D |
Some concern. | Mean (SD) PFMT + Education: 64.5 (4.2) Education: 64.7 (4.1) |
A significant decrease in leakage was observed in the PFMT + education group compared with the only education group. | ||
| Bo et al. [12] | QoLS-N B-FLUTS |
High risk. | Mean (SD) PFMT: 49.6 (10.0) Control: 51.7 (8.8) |
Significant improvement in sex-life, social life, and physical activity in PFMT group. NS difference between the groups. |
||
| McLean et al. [13] | Pad test UDI-6 IIQ-7 3-day bladder diary |
High risk. | Mean ± SD PFMT: 49.5 ± 8.2 Control: 54.0 ± 8.4 |
Significant improvements in in PFMT group on the impact of SUI compared with the control group. Pad test NS difference between the PFMT group and the control group. |
||
| Pereira et al. [5] | Pad test Perina Stim device |
Low risk. | Median (min, max) PFMT: 62 (51, 85) VC: 64 (52, 83) Control: 62(51, 80) |
Significant decrease in urinary leakage in PFMT and VC group from baseline compared with the control group. | ||
| Leong et al. [2] | IIQ-SF-7 UI7 |
Some concern. | Mean (± SD) 74.3 ± 4.6 |
Significant reduction in urinary leakage (>90%) in the PFMT + BT + education group compared with the education group (7.2%). |
(VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; UI-7, Urinary Incontinence; IIQ-SF-7, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Short form; UDI-6, Urogenital Distress Inventory; QoLS-N, Norwegian version of the Quality of Life Scale; B-FLUTS, Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module; EQ5D-; ICIQ, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence; QUID, Questionnaire for urinary incontinence diagnoses; OGS, Oxford Grading Scale; I-QOL, Incontinence quality of life; RUIS, Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale; KHQ, King’s Health Questionnaire).