Study's flaws may be misleading

EDITOR—Bø et al's study comparing the various methods used in the conservative management of genuine stress incontinence has several flaws, which may mislead readers.1 The study has been described as pragmatic, reflecting current practice. This view is undermined by the instructions to the women in the vaginal cone and electrical stimulation groups not to perform pelvic floor exercises while using their treatments; this does not reflect current clinical practice. In a prospective randomised study comparing the efficacy of pelvic floor exercises in combination with vaginal cones and pelvic floor exercises alone the combination of the two treatments was significantly more efficacious than either alone.2

In a prospective randomised study comparing the efficacy of pelvic floor exercises in combination with vaginal cones, vaginal cones …