Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women
E. Jean C. Hay-Smith, Małgorzata Starzec‐Proserpio, Brittany Moller, Daniela Aldabe, Licia Cacciari, Ana Carolina Rodarti Pitangui, Giovana Vesentini, Stephanie J. Woodley, Chantale Dumoulin, Helena Frawley, Cristine Homsi Jorge Ferreira, Mélanie Morin, S Wallace, Mark Weatherall
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a recommended treatment for female stress, urgency, and mixed urinary incontinence. Training varies in exercise type (pelvic floor muscles contracting with and without other muscles), dose, and delivery (e.g. amount and type of supervision). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alternative approaches (exercise type, dose, and delivery) to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in the management of urinary incontinence (stress, urgency, and mixed) in women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 September 2023; which contains CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization ICTRP), handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and reviewed reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised, or cluster-randomised trials in female stress, urge, or mixed urinary incontinence where one trial arm included PFMT and another was an alternative approach to PFMT type, dose, or intervention delivery. We excluded studies with participants with neurological conditions or pregnant or recently postpartum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We extracted and cross-checked data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Data processing was as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6). Synthesis was completed in intervention subgroups. MAIN RESULTS: = 25%; 3 studies, 318 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Nine trials collected adverse event data; 66/1083 (6%) women had an adverse event. Almost all events were associated with use of an intravaginal or intrarectal training device. The adverse events were vaginal discharge, spotting, or discomfort. Limitations in the evidence Four main factors influenced our certainty in the evidence: 44 trials were at unclear or high risk of selection bias; data were sparse in some subgroups with few trials, trials that did not measure outcomes of interest, or did not report usable data; results were inconsistent; and many trials were small (imprecise). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that some approaches to PFMT are better than others, for some there was little or no difference. The 7th International Consultation on Incontinence recommends PFMT as first-line therapy for women with urinary incontinence. Direct PFMT (sets of repeated, isolated, voluntary pelvic floor muscle contractions) may result in a small improvement in incontinence quality of life compared to indirect training. In terms of improved quality of life, PFMT can be supervised individually or in a group because it probably makes little to no difference in achieving this outcome. Many comparisons had low- or very low-certainty evidence, often because there was only one trial or several small trials with methodological limitations. More, better designed and reported trials, directly comparing PFMT approaches are needed, especially trials investigating exercise dose.