Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Acupuncture for stress urinary incontinence in adults

  1. Yang Wang1,*,
  2. Liu Zhishun1,
  3. Weina Peng1,
  4. Jie Zhao2,
  5. Baoyan Liu3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Incontinence Group

Published Online: 1 JUL 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 28 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009408.pub2


How to Cite

Wang Y, Zhishun L, Peng W, Zhao J, Liu B. Acupuncture for stress urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD009408. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009408.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Guang An Men Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing, China

  2. 2

    Chinese Medical Doctor Association, China Association of Chinese Medicine, Education Department of Guang An Men Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, Beijing, China

  3. 3

    China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

*Yang Wang, Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Guang An Men Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No.5, Beixiange Street, Xuanwu District, Beijing, 100053, China. migofree@126.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 1 JUL 2013

SEARCH

 
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Bi 2007

MethodsDesign: randomised controlled trial

Allocation concealment: no

Blinding procedures: no blinding

Duration: 6-12 weeks

Follow-up: no follow-up

Withdrawal/dropouts: none

Intention-to-treat: yes


Participants60 women

Inclusion criteria: stress urinary incontinence

Exclusion criteria: no

Mean age: 52.8 years


InterventionsA (30 women): electroacupuncture

B (30 women): midodrine hydrochloride


OutcomesSubjective cure rate: A) 13.3%, B) 6.7%

Subjective improved rate: A) 73.3%, B) 33.3%

Adverse effects: A 0/30, B 23/30 (headache, dizziness and thirst)


NotesSmall sample size


Risk of bias

BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskRandom number table

Allocation concealment (selection bias)High riskNo concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes
High riskNo blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes
High riskNo blinding assessment

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes
Low riskNo incomplete data

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskNo selective reporting

Other biasUnclear riskSmall sample size

 
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

StudyReason for exclusion

Bi 2011The intervention was warm acupuncture combined with foot massage and pelvic floor muscle training

Chen 2003Acupuncture versus another type of acupuncture

Chen 2010Acupuncture combined with treatment A versus acupuncture combined with treatment B

Gao 2011The intervention was acupuncture combined with another treatment

He 2011Not a randomised controlled trial

Jung 2008Some important data were absent

Le 2008Acupuncture combined with treatment B versus treatment B combined with C

Ni 2008Acupuncture plus herb, moxibustion and PFMT versus drug plus PFMT

Shang 2010Acupuncture compared with another kind of acupuncture

Sun 2011The intervention was acupuncture combined with another treatment

Tang 2009Acupuncture plus moxibustion and PFMT versus PFMT

Wang 2006Acupuncture compared with another kind of acupuncture

Xiong 2005Acupuncture plus PFMT versus herb

Yang 2004Acupuncture compared with another type of acupuncture

Yang 2008Not a randomised controlled trial

Yang 2010Acupuncture compared with another type of acupuncture

Yang B 2010Not a randomised controlled trial

Yang T 2004Acupuncture compared with another type of acupuncture

Yue 2008Acupuncture compared with another type of acupuncture

Zheng 1992Not a randomised controlled trial. Acupuncture compared with another type of acupuncture

 
Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]
Shen 2012

MethodsDesign: randomised controlled trial

Allocation concealment: no

Blinding procedures: no blinding

Duration: 5-7 days

Follow-up: no follow-up

Withdrawal/dropouts: none

Intention-to-treat: yes

Participants120 men

Inclusion criteria: transurethral resection of the prostate

Exclusion criteria: yes

Mean age: not reported

InterventionsA (30 men): electroacupuncture

B (30 men): tolterodine tartrate

C (30 men): electroacupuncture and tolterodine tartrate

D (30 men): control (pethidine and anisodamine if necessary)

OutcomesBladder contraction:

A) 0.58 (24 h); 1.82 (24-48 h); 1.15 (48-72 h)

B) 0.59 (24 h); 1.80 (24-48 h); 1.13 (48-72 h)

C) 0.46 (24 h); 1.55 (24-48 h); 0.82 (48-72 h)

D) 0.76 (24 h); 2.82 (24-48 h); 2.76 (48-72 h)

Bladder contraction duration:

A) 6.81 (24 h); 7.65 (24-48 h); 6.89 (48-72 h)

B) 6.54 (24 h); 7.27 (24-48 h); 6.43 (48-72 h)

C) 5.43 (24 h); 4.40 (24-48 h); 3.88 (48-72 h)

D) 8.46 (24 h);9.83 (24-48 h); 10.87 (48-72 h)

Adverse effects: no

Notes

 
Comparison 2. Acupuncture versus any other treatment

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Number of women improved (subjective)1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

 2 Number of women cured (subjective) cured rate1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected