E Jean C Hay-Smith, Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio, Brittany Moller, Daniela Aldabe, Licia Cacciari, Ana Carolina R Pitangui, Giovana Vesentini, Stephanie J Woodley, Chantale Dumoulin, Helena C Frawley, Cristine H Jorge, Mélanie Morin, Sheila A Wallace, Mark Weatherall
{"title":"比较针对女性尿失禁的盆底肌肉训练方法。","authors":"E Jean C Hay-Smith, Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio, Brittany Moller, Daniela Aldabe, Licia Cacciari, Ana Carolina R Pitangui, Giovana Vesentini, Stephanie J Woodley, Chantale Dumoulin, Helena C Frawley, Cristine H Jorge, Mélanie Morin, Sheila A Wallace, Mark Weatherall","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD009508.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>This is a review update. The analysis included 63 trials with 4920 women; the previous version included 21 trials with 1490 women. Samples sizes ranged from 11 to 362. Overall, study participants were mid-age (45 to 65 years) parous women with stress or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (46 trials), who had no prior incontinence treatment or pelvic surgery, or appreciable pelvic floor dysfunction. Trials were conducted in countries around the world, mostly in middle- or high-income settings (53 trials). All trials had one or more arms using 'direct' PFMT, defined as repeated, isolated, voluntary pelvic floor muscle contractions. Trials were categorised as comparisons of exercise type (27 trials, 3 subgroups), dose (11 trials, 5 subgroups, 1 with no data), and delivery (25 trials, 5 subgroups). Incontinence quality of life data are reported here as the primary outcome. Adverse event data were summarised narratively. Comparison 1: exercise type Co-ordinated training (body movements with concurrent pelvic floor muscle contraction) versus direct PFMT Co-ordinated training may slightly improve quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to -0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 81%; 8 trials, 356 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training (exercises that are not contractions of the pelvic floor muscles) versus direct PFMT Direct PFMT may moderately improve quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 78%; 4 trials, 170 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training combined with direct PFMT versus direct PFMT Combining indirect training with direct PFMT may make little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.10; I<sup>2</sup> = 33; 7 trials, 482 women; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: exercise dose PFMT with resistance device versus PFMT without resistance device PFMT without a resistance device may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 32%; 3 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence). Maximal pelvic floor muscle contractions versus submaximal pelvic floor muscle contractions No data reported. PFMT more days per week versus PFMT fewer days per week PFMT more days per week may greatly improve incontinence quality of life (SMD -1.60, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.05; 1 trial, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). PFMT in upright body positions versus PFMT when lying down No data reported. Comparison 3: exercise intervention delivery PFMT supervised in clinic versus PFMT at home Clinic supervision may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05; I<sup>2</sup> = 89%; 3 trials, 137 women; very low-certainty evidence). More clinician contact for PFMT supervision versus less clinician contact No usable data reported. Individual supervision of PFMT versus group supervision Individually supervised PFMT probably results in little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 5 trials, 544 women; moderate-certainty evidence). PFMT supervised in clinic versus supervision using e-health (mobile app communication with clinicians) Clinic supervision may make little to no difference in incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; 1 trial, 173 women; very low-certainty evidence). PFMT instruction delivered via e-health versus written instruction E-health delivery may slightly improve quality of life (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 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).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"12 ","pages":"CD009508"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660230/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women.\",\"authors\":\"E Jean C Hay-Smith, Małgorzata Starzec-Proserpio, Brittany Moller, Daniela Aldabe, Licia Cacciari, Ana Carolina R Pitangui, Giovana Vesentini, Stephanie J Woodley, Chantale Dumoulin, Helena C Frawley, Cristine H Jorge, Mélanie Morin, Sheila A Wallace, Mark Weatherall\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD009508.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>This is a review update. The analysis included 63 trials with 4920 women; the previous version included 21 trials with 1490 women. Samples sizes ranged from 11 to 362. Overall, study participants were mid-age (45 to 65 years) parous women with stress or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (46 trials), who had no prior incontinence treatment or pelvic surgery, or appreciable pelvic floor dysfunction. Trials were conducted in countries around the world, mostly in middle- or high-income settings (53 trials). All trials had one or more arms using 'direct' PFMT, defined as repeated, isolated, voluntary pelvic floor muscle contractions. Trials were categorised as comparisons of exercise type (27 trials, 3 subgroups), dose (11 trials, 5 subgroups, 1 with no data), and delivery (25 trials, 5 subgroups). Incontinence quality of life data are reported here as the primary outcome. Adverse event data were summarised narratively. Comparison 1: exercise type Co-ordinated training (body movements with concurrent pelvic floor muscle contraction) versus direct PFMT Co-ordinated training may slightly improve quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to -0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 81%; 8 trials, 356 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training (exercises that are not contractions of the pelvic floor muscles) versus direct PFMT Direct PFMT may moderately improve quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 78%; 4 trials, 170 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training combined with direct PFMT versus direct PFMT Combining indirect training with direct PFMT may make little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.10; I<sup>2</sup> = 33; 7 trials, 482 women; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: exercise dose PFMT with resistance device versus PFMT without resistance device PFMT without a resistance device may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 32%; 3 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence). Maximal pelvic floor muscle contractions versus submaximal pelvic floor muscle contractions No data reported. PFMT more days per week versus PFMT fewer days per week PFMT more days per week may greatly improve incontinence quality of life (SMD -1.60, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.05; 1 trial, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). PFMT in upright body positions versus PFMT when lying down No data reported. Comparison 3: exercise intervention delivery PFMT supervised in clinic versus PFMT at home Clinic supervision may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05; I<sup>2</sup> = 89%; 3 trials, 137 women; very low-certainty evidence). More clinician contact for PFMT supervision versus less clinician contact No usable data reported. Individual supervision of PFMT versus group supervision Individually supervised PFMT probably results in little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 5 trials, 544 women; moderate-certainty evidence). PFMT supervised in clinic versus supervision using e-health (mobile app communication with clinicians) Clinic supervision may make little to no difference in incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; 1 trial, 173 women; very low-certainty evidence). PFMT instruction delivered via e-health versus written instruction E-health delivery may slightly improve quality of life (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 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).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"CD009508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660230/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009508.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009508.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
通过电子医疗提供的PFMT指导与书面指导相比,电子医疗提供可能略微改善生活质量(SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.43至0.01;I2 = 25%;3项研究,318名女性;确定性的证据)。9项试验收集了不良事件数据;66/1083(6%)女性有不良事件。几乎所有的事件都与使用阴道内或直肠内训练装置有关。不良事件为阴道分泌物、点滴或不适。有四个主要因素影响证据的确定性:44项试验存在不明确或高风险的选择偏倚;在一些试验较少的亚组中,数据稀疏,试验没有测量感兴趣的结果,或者没有报告可用数据;结果不一致;而且许多试验规模很小(不精确)。作者的结论是:尽管有低到中等确定性的证据表明,一些PFMT方法比其他方法更好,但有些方法几乎没有差异。第七届国际尿失禁咨询会议推荐PFMT作为女性尿失禁的一线治疗。与间接训练相比,直接PFMT(一组重复的、孤立的、自愿的盆底肌肉收缩)可能会导致尿失禁生活质量的小幅改善。就改善生活质量而言,PFMT可以单独或集体进行监督,因为它在实现这一结果方面可能几乎没有区别。许多比较具有低或极低确定性的证据,通常是因为只有一个试验或几个小试验具有方法学上的局限性。需要更多更好的设计和报道的试验,直接比较PFMT方法,特别是研究运动剂量的试验。
Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women.
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: This is a review update. The analysis included 63 trials with 4920 women; the previous version included 21 trials with 1490 women. Samples sizes ranged from 11 to 362. Overall, study participants were mid-age (45 to 65 years) parous women with stress or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (46 trials), who had no prior incontinence treatment or pelvic surgery, or appreciable pelvic floor dysfunction. Trials were conducted in countries around the world, mostly in middle- or high-income settings (53 trials). All trials had one or more arms using 'direct' PFMT, defined as repeated, isolated, voluntary pelvic floor muscle contractions. Trials were categorised as comparisons of exercise type (27 trials, 3 subgroups), dose (11 trials, 5 subgroups, 1 with no data), and delivery (25 trials, 5 subgroups). Incontinence quality of life data are reported here as the primary outcome. Adverse event data were summarised narratively. Comparison 1: exercise type Co-ordinated training (body movements with concurrent pelvic floor muscle contraction) versus direct PFMT Co-ordinated training may slightly improve quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to -0.01; I2 = 81%; 8 trials, 356 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training (exercises that are not contractions of the pelvic floor muscles) versus direct PFMT Direct PFMT may moderately improve quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; 4 trials, 170 women; low-certainty evidence). Indirect training combined with direct PFMT versus direct PFMT Combining indirect training with direct PFMT may make little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.10; I2 = 33; 7 trials, 482 women; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: exercise dose PFMT with resistance device versus PFMT without resistance device PFMT without a resistance device may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.48; I2 = 32%; 3 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence). Maximal pelvic floor muscle contractions versus submaximal pelvic floor muscle contractions No data reported. PFMT more days per week versus PFMT fewer days per week PFMT more days per week may greatly improve incontinence quality of life (SMD -1.60, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.05; 1 trial, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). PFMT in upright body positions versus PFMT when lying down No data reported. Comparison 3: exercise intervention delivery PFMT supervised in clinic versus PFMT at home Clinic supervision may slightly improve incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05; I2 = 89%; 3 trials, 137 women; very low-certainty evidence). More clinician contact for PFMT supervision versus less clinician contact No usable data reported. Individual supervision of PFMT versus group supervision Individually supervised PFMT probably results in little to no difference in quality of life (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.01; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 544 women; moderate-certainty evidence). PFMT supervised in clinic versus supervision using e-health (mobile app communication with clinicians) Clinic supervision may make little to no difference in incontinence quality of life, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; 1 trial, 173 women; very low-certainty evidence). PFMT instruction delivered via e-health versus written instruction E-health delivery may slightly improve quality of life (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.01; I2 = 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.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.