Combined conservative interventions for urge, stress or mixed incontinence in adults

B French, L Thomas, MJ Leathley, CJ Sutton, J Booth, K Brittain, F Cheater, Brenda Roe, JC Hay-Smith, J MCAdam

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    35 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine whether combinations of conservative interventions for urge, stress, or mixed urinary incontinence reduce the number of people with urinary incontinence compared against no treatment/usual care, or another intervention. The secondary objectives are to determine the effect of combined conservative interventions on subjective perceptions of cure or improvement; the severity of incontinence or urinary symptoms; quality of life or symptom distress; satisfaction with treatment; cost; or adverse events. The specific comparisons to be made include: combined conservative intervention versus no active treatment (e.g. no treatment, wait list control, attention control or usual care); combined conservative intervention versus another single active treatment (e.g. a single conservative intervention, or an active non-conservative intervention); one combined conservative intervention versus another combined active conservative treatment.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-7
    JournalProtocol in the Cochrane Library
    Issue number12
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 8 Dec 2010

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Combined conservative interventions for urge, stress or mixed incontinence in adults'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    French, B., Thomas, L., Leathley, MJ., Sutton, CJ., Booth, J., Brittain, K., Cheater, F., Roe, B., Hay-Smith, JC., & MCAdam, J. (2010). Combined conservative interventions for urge, stress or mixed incontinence in adults. Protocol in the Cochrane Library, (12), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008910