The added value of devices to pelvic floor muscle training in radical post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review with metanalysis
Benedetto, Giardulli ; Simone, Battista LU
; Gaia, Leuzzi
; Mirko, Job
; Ottavia, Buccarella
and Marco, Testa
(2023)
In PLoS ONE
18(9).
p.1-18
- Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.
RESULTS:... (More)
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a 'low' RoB, one had 'some concerns', while nine were at a 'high' RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: In line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.
(Less)
- author
- Benedetto, Giardulli
; Simone, Battista
LU
; Gaia, Leuzzi
; Mirko, Job
; Ottavia, Buccarella
and Marco, Testa
- publishing date
- 2023
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- in
- PLoS ONE
- volume
- 18
- issue
- 9
- article number
- e0289636
- pages
- 1 - 18
- publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85173703677
- pmid:37768987
- ISSN
- 1932-6203
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0289636
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- additional info
- Copyright: © 2023 Benedetto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
- id
- 67469c53-c56e-4c09-a3fd-d3385e52e2d4
- date added to LUP
- 2023-10-06 10:31:54
- date last changed
- 2024-04-19 02:00:39
@article{67469c53-c56e-4c09-a3fd-d3385e52e2d4,
abstract = {{<p>PURPOSE: To investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.</p><p>MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.</p><p>RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a 'low' RoB, one had 'some concerns', while nine were at a 'high' RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: In line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</p>}},
author = {{Benedetto, Giardulli and Simone, Battista and Gaia, Leuzzi and Mirko, Job and Ottavia, Buccarella and Marco, Testa}},
issn = {{1932-6203}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{9}},
pages = {{1--18}},
publisher = {{Public Library of Science (PLoS)}},
series = {{PLoS ONE}},
title = {{The added value of devices to pelvic floor muscle training in radical post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review with metanalysis}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289636}},
doi = {{10.1371/journal.pone.0289636}},
volume = {{18}},
year = {{2023}},
}