16. Urgency urinary incontinence: cure or improvement, conservative versus conservative.
| Analysis code (in review) | Study ID | Comparisons included | Timing of measure | Included trials (n) | Effect measure | Effect estimate (CI) | Direction of effect | Evidence of beneficial effect? | Number of downgrades (reason for downgrade) |
| Moderate‐certainty evidence | |||||||||
| 4.2.1 | Herderschee 2011 | PFMT + BF vs PFMT + F | IM |
Burgio 2002c1 (n = 110) |
RR | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.7) | > 1 favours PFMT + feedback | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 2.8.2 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs laseropuncture | IM |
Kosilov 20132 (n = 114) |
MD | −1.8 (−2.3 to −1.3) | < 0 favours ES | YES favours ES | 1(H) |
| 4.2.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES + PFMT vs PFMT alone | IM |
Schreiner 20102 (n = 51) |
RR | 0.56 (0.3 to 0.9) | < 1 favours ES + other | YES favours ES + PFMT | 1(H) |
| 4.3.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES + PFMT vs PFMT alone | IM |
Schreiner 20102 (n = 51) |
RR | 0.3 (0.1 to 0.7) | < 1 favours ES + other | YES favours ES + PFMT | 1(H) |
| 2.3.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs PFMT | IM |
Wang 20042 (n = 69) |
RR | 0.8 (0.5 to 1.2) | < 1 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 2.3.2 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs PFMT + biofeedback |
IM |
Wang 20042 (n = 69) |
RR | 0.9 (0.6 to 1.6) | < 1 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 2.8.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs PFMT | IM |
Arruda 20082 (n = 42) |
MD | 0.1 (−8.7 to 8.9) | < 0 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| Low‐certainty evidence | |||||||||
| 5.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + non‐drug therapies vs non‐drug therapies alone | IM |
Park 2002 (n = 50) |
RR | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.3) | < 1 favours anticholinergics + non‐drug therapies | NO | 4(E×2, H×2) |
| 5.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + non‐drug therapies vs non‐drug therapies alone | IM |
Song 2006 (n = 57) |
RR | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.2) | < 1 favours anticholinergics + non‐drug therapies | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 4.9.2 | Stewart 2016 | ES + PFMT vs PFMT | IM |
Firra 20132 (n = 12) |
MD | 0.2 (−1.2 to 1.6) | < 0 favours ES + other | NO | 3(A, E×2) |
1Burgio 2002 was a three‐arm trial in which two of the groups received PFMT, combined with either feedback or biofeedback. Both groups received active treatment, each comprising a different way of delivering the same intervention. 2These trials compared ES with another conservative intervention. However, in all cases both conservative interventions were categorised as 'physical therapy' interventions. Abbreviation: CI: confidence interval; ES: electrical stimulation; IM: immediate; MD: mean difference; n: number of participants assessed NOT to have been cured or improved using a variety of different assessment methods; RR: risk ratio. Codes for GRADE assessment: A: blinding of outcome assessor; B: allocation concealment; C: differential attrition; D: ROBIS domain 2; E: CIs plus sample size; F: heterogeneity using I2 statistic; G: type of UI was unclear or not reported; H: unclear or not reported for blinding, allocation and differential attrition.