Conservative management of genuine stress incontinence in women

BMJ 1999;319:190 ( 17 July )

Letters

Conservative management of genuine stress incontinence in women

Study's flaws may be misleading

Authors' reply

Study's flaws may be misleading

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Bø et al's study comparing the various methods used in the conservative management of genuine stress incontinence hasseveral flaws, which may mislead readers.¹ The study has beendescribed as pragmatic, reflecting current practice. This viewis undermined by the instructions to the women in the vaginalcone and electrical stimulation groups not to perform pelvic floorexercises while using their treatments; this does not reflectcurrent clinical practice. In a prospective randomised study comparingthe efficacy of pelvic floor exercises in combination with vaginalcones and pelvic floor exercises alone the combination of thetwo treatments was significantly more efficacious than eitheralone.²

In a prospective randomised study comparing the efficacy of pelvic floor exercises in combination with vaginal cones, vaginalcones alone, and vaginal electrical stimulation alone, again thecombination of two techniques produced greater improvement inurinary incontinence.³

We are also concerned about the differing . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Single blind, randomised controlled trial of pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no treatment in management of genuine stress incontinence in women: Kari Bø, Trygve Talseth, and Ingar Holme
BMJ 1999 318: 487-493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]