Letters

Conservative management of genuine stress incontinence in women

BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7203.190b (Published 17 July 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:190

Study's flaws may be misleading

  1. Vik Khullar, Subspecialty trainee in urogynaecology (vkhullar@cwcom.net),
  2. Stefano Salvatore, Research fellow,
  3. John Bidmead, Research fellow,
  4. Kate Anders, Urogynaecology nurse specialist,
  5. Linda Cardozo, Professor of urogynaecology
  1. Department of Urogynaecology, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS
  2. Norwegian Centre for Physiotherapy Research and Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education, PO Box 4014, Ullevål Stadion, 0806 Oslo, Norway
  3. National Hospital of Norway, Oslo

    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 …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe