4.5 Review

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy Treatment for Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 490-501

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7140

Keywords

urinary incontinence; women; pelvic floor muscle; physiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) may be defined as involuntary urine loss, which can be diagnosed based on patient-reported measures and is a hygiene and social problem in those who have it, affecting their quality of life negatively. Objective: The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of distinct physiotherapy techniques used in the treatment of UI in women through a systematic review of the existing literature. The scales and instruments used for the assessment and follow-up of UI were described. Methods: On searching the PubMed, Dialnet, PEDro, and SciELo databases, 16 articles, with information on 1220 patients that comply with the inclusion criteria and conform to the proposed objectives were obtained, limiting the publication period to 2007-2016. The PRISMA statement was adopted. Results: The Pad Test is a commonly used diagnostic test and bladder diaries on paper; the Oxford scale was used in the assessment of pelvic floor muscle strength. Distinct protocols and techniques have been described in the treatment of UI in women, namely, pelvic floor exercises, vaginal cones, biofeedback, and electrostimulation. Upon analysis of the content of the articles, the quality of the included clinical trials was determined using the PEDro scale. Conclusions: Studies included in this work propose that physiotherapy treatment may improve UI, the patients' quality of life, and social relations in women. It is necessary to establish group treatment protocols for women with UI, supervised by a physiotherapist to reduce the financial burden incurred from this health problem.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available