PloS one · 2023
The added value of devices to pelvic floor muscle training in radical post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review with metanalysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Benedetto Giardulli, Simone Battista, Gaia Leuzzi, Mirko Job, Ottavia Buccarella, Marco Testa
Аннотация
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.
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.