This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (6 JUL 2011)
Intervention Review
Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women
Editorial Group: Cochrane Incontinence Group
Published Online: 21 JAN 2009
Assessed as up-to-date: 17 MAR 2006
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001756.pub4
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Database Title
Additional Information
How to Cite
Shaikh S, Ong EK, Glavind K, Cook J, N'Dow JMO. Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001756. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001756.pub4.
Publication History
- Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
- Published Online: 21 JAN 2009
This is not the most recent version of the article.View current version (06 Jul 2011)
Abstract
Background
Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management. The latter more so when a person did not want surgery or when considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.
Objectives
To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (7 December 2005). The register contains trials identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings.
Selection criteria
All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined either by symptom classification or by urodynamic diagnosis.
Data collection and analysis
Three reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and methodological quality and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 4.2).
Main results
There were six trials involving a total of 286 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Five trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. There were no trials comparing a mechanical device with another type of treatment.
Authors' conclusions
The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and a large well-conducted trial is required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and no evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.
Plain language summary
Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women.
Urinary incontinence is involuntary loss of urine. The common types are stress and urge incontinence. Mechanical devices within the urethra or vagina can be used with the intention of controlling the leakage. The review of trials found that using mechanical devices might be better than no treatment but the evidence for this is weak. There was insufficient evidence to recommend any specific device or to show that mechanical devices are better than other forms of treatment.