18. Urgency urinary incontinence: primary outcome participant‐reported cure or improvement; conservative versus non‐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 | |||||||||
| 6.2.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + behavioural interventions vs anticholinergic drugs alone | IM |
Burgio 2008; Burgio 20103 (n = 364) |
RR | 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9) | > 1 favours drugs alone | YES favours drugs + behavioural interventions |
2(F×2) |
| 6.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + non‐drug therapies vs anticholinergic drugs alone | IM |
Millard 2004 (n = 475) |
RR | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.9) | > 1 favours drugs | NO | 1(H) |
| 3.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs external electrostimulation | IM |
Wang 2006 (n = 47) |
RR | 1.5 (0.8 to 2.6) | > 1 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 3.10.3 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs trospium + solifenacin |
IM |
Kosilov 20131 (n = 110) |
MD | 2.2 (1.8 to 2.6) | < 0 favours ES | YES favours drugs | 1(H) |
| 4.9.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES + drugs vs drugs | IM |
Sancaktar 20101 (n = 38) |
MD | −0.9 (−1.1 to −0.7) | < 0 favours ES + other | YES favours ES + drugs | 1(H) |
| 3.10.2 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs oxybutynin | IM |
Arruda 20081 (n = 43) |
MD | 0.9 (−6.4 to 8.2) | < 0 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 3.6.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs tolterodine | IM |
Franzén 2010 (n = 64) |
RR | 0.9 (0.4 to 2.0) | < 1 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 4.9.3 | Stewart 2016 | ES + PFMT + drugs vs drugs | IM |
Kaya 20111 (n = 30) |
MD | −1 (−2.1 to 0.1) | < 0 favours ES + other | NO | 2(E×2) |
| 3.14.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs solifenacin succinate | IM |
Vecchioli‐Scaldazza 20131 (n = 30) |
MD | −0.9 (−2.0 to 0.2) | < 0 favours ES | NO | 2(E×2) |
| Low‐certainty evidence | |||||||||
| 7.4.2 | Ayeleke 2015 | PFMT + drug therapy vs drug therapy alone | IM |
Burgio 20103 (n = 58) |
RR | 0.9 (0.7 to 1.1) | > 1 favours PFMT + other | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 7.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs combination non‐drug therapies | IM |
Goode 2002 (n = 128) |
RR | 2.4 (1.0 to 5.8) | < 0 favours anticholinergics | NO | 4(C, E×2, H) |
| 1.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs bladder training | IM |
Colombo 19954 (n = 27) |
RR | 0.5 (0.4 to 4.5) | > 1 favours bladder training | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 1.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs bladder training | IM |
Milani 1986 (n = 75) |
RR | 0.8 (0.6 to 1.1) | > 1 favours bladder training | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 1.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs bladder training | IM |
Park 20022 (n = 48) |
RR | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.5) | > 1 favours bladder training | NO | 4(E×2, H×2) |
| 6.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + non‐drug therapies vs anticholinergic drugs alone | IM |
Park 20022 (n = 50) |
RR | 0.7 (0.4 to 1.6) | > 1 favours drugs alone | NO | 4(E×2, H×2) |
| 3.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs external electrostimulation | IM |
Aaronson 1995 (n = 38) |
RR | 1.3 (0.7 to 2.3) | > 1 favours ES | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 1.3 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs vs bladder training | IM |
Song 20062 (n = 58) |
RR | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.5) | > 1 favours bladder training | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 6.2 | Rai 2012 | Anticholinergic drugs + non‐drug therapies vs anticholinergic drugs alone | IM |
Song 20062 (n = 63) |
RR | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.6) | > 1 favours drugs alone | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 3.11 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs tolterodine | IM |
Preyer 20071 (n = 31) |
MD | 1.3 (−1.6 to 4.2) | < 0 favours ES | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 3.5.1 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs oxybutynin after 12 weeks | IM |
Souto 2014 (n = 37) |
RR | 0.3 (0.1 to 1.5) | < 1 favours ES | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 3.5.2 | Stewart 2016 | ES vs oxybutynin after 24 weeks | FU1 |
Souto 2014 (n = 37) |
RR | 0.6 (0.1 to 1.8) | < 1 favours ES | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
| 2.3 | Wallace 2004 | Bladder training vs anticholinergic drugs | IM |
Colombo 19954 (n = 75) |
RR | 1.1 (0.9 to 1.3) | > 1 favours bladder training | NO | 3(E×2, H) |
1Data were presented as mean differences within these trials. 2Song 2006 and Park 2002 were both three‐arm trials, both with groups: bladder training, anticholinergic drug and bladder training plus anticholinergic drug. 3These are the same data for Burgio 2010. This was the same trial, included in two different reviews (the trial name within Ayeleke 2015 was "Burgio 2010a"). 4Data from Colombo 1995 were included within both Kirchin 2017 and Wallace 2004. The methods used to determine number cure or improved differed within the two reviews, resulting with different effect sizes; however, both reviews presented data derived from the same participant groups. Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; ES: electrical stimulation; FU1: follow‐up one; IM: immediate; MD: mean difference; n: number of participants assessed NOT to have been cured or improved using a variety of different assessment methods; PFMT: pelvic floor muscle training; 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.