Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Preference: number not preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Preference: number not preferring design.

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 9 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 9 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day), Outcome 9 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 2 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8 Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.6

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.7

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.8

Comparison 9 Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.6

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.7

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.8

Comparison 10 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.5

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.6

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.7

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 11.8

Comparison 11 Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.5

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.6

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.7

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 12.8

Comparison 12 Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.4

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.5

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.6

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.7

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 7 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 13.8

Comparison 13 Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night), Outcome 8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 2 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 3 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 4 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 5 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Preference: number preferring design.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.6

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 6 Preference: number preferring design.

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 14.7

Comparison 14 Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night), Outcome 7 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay.

Comparison 1. Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.27 [1.33, 3.86]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.47 [1.22, 4.99]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.02 [0.89, 4.56]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.43 [1.05, 5.66]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.54 [0.86, 7.53]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.29 [0.60, 8.72]

3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.20, 0.81]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.18, 0.84]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.09, 2.43]

4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.28 [1.06, 4.93]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.33, 2.73]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

6.23 [2.02, 19.23]

5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.87 [1.18, 2.97]

5.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [0.91, 4.35]

5.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [1.02, 3.21]

6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.57, 1.28]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.48, 1.77]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.48, 1.36]

7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.77, 2.91]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.30, 1.57]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

6.11 [2.00, 18.68]

8 Preference: number not preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.77, 1.83]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.41, 1.17]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.61 [1.70, 7.65]

9 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.13, 0.68]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.06, 0.45]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.24, 4.88]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (day)
Comparison 2. Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.95 [1.50, 5.78]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.64 [1.08, 6.43]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.42 [1.22, 9.56]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.24 [0.90, 5.55]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.58, 5.93]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.01 [0.70, 12.97]

3 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.35, 1.43]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.33, 1.59]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.13, 3.08]

4 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.74 [0.91, 3.31]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.31, 1.87]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

4.16 [1.65, 10.49]

5 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.16 [1.57, 2.95]

5.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [1.51, 2.96]

5.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.45 [1.04, 5.80]

6 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.37, 0.95]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.32, 1.15]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.29, 1.15]

7 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.66, 2.65]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.23, 1.45]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

4.17 [1.41, 12.33]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.10, 0.54]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [0.03, 0.30]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.22, 2.95]

9 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.76, 1.75]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.44, 1.25]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [1.29, 5.34]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day)
Comparison 3. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.63, 1.61]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.20, 1.16]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.78, 2.35]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.40, 2.54]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.20, 3.08]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.35, 4.42]

3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.22, 1.00]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.08, 0.75]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.29, 2.33]

4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.09, 0.37]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.06, 0.28]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.14, 2.58]

5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.29, 1.73]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.06, 1.13]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.41, 3.89]

6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.72, 1.61]

6.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.43, 2.14]

6.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.71, 1.78]

7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.67, 1.56]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.53, 1.66]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.61, 2.12]

8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.22, 1.04]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.77]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.31, 3.07]

9 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.45, 1.08]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.16, 0.53]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [0.96, 3.41]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (day)
Comparison 4. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.22, 0.60]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.09, 0.41]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.31, 1.30]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.18, 0.94]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.10, 1.00]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.17, 1.71]

3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.49, 3.01]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.38, 4.99]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.30, 3.84]

4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.26, 0.86]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.25, 0.87]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.08, 4.18]

5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.11, 0.49]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.07, 0.98]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.09, 0.54]

6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.34, 0.92]

6.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.22, 1.04]

6.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.33, 1.18]

7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.68, 1.57]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.59, 1.98]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.55, 1.77]

8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.15, 0.51]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.17, 0.84]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.08, 0.47]

9 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.25, 0.62]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.22, 0.68]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.20, 0.87]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (day)
Comparison 5. Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.46, 1.86]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.18, 1.49]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.57, 3.75]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.30, 2.30]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.16, 2.03]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.63 [0.30, 8.87]

3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.12, 0.63]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.04, 0.39]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.21, 2.65]

4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [0.12, 0.47]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.09, 0.40]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.16, 7.53]

5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.21, 1.01]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [0.04, 0.55]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.33, 2.38]

6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.86, 2.10]

6.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.43, 2.27]

6.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.90, 2.58]

7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.48, 1.01]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.34, 1.38]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.45, 1.08]

8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.20, 0.90]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.78]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.24, 2.03]

9 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.40, 0.92]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.22, 0.70]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.54, 1.86]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (day)
Comparison 6. Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.65, 2.28]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.47, 2.49]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.43 [0.55, 3.69]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.35, 2.47]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.21, 2.59]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.28, 6.21]

3 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.36, 0.99]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.32, 1.02]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.22, 2.04]

4 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.83, 2.35]

4.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.77, 2.50]

4.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.41 [0.45, 4.40]

5 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.29, 1.05]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.23, 1.08]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.22, 2.20]

6 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.80, 1.96]

6.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.49, 2.31]

6.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.78, 2.37]

7 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.44, 1.15]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.36, 1.39]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.36, 1.41]

8 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.47, 1.47]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.44, 1.75]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.26, 2.05]

9 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.70, 1.56]

9.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.60, 1.67]

9.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.60, 2.12]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (day)
Comparison 7. Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.67, 2.55]

1.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.27, 2.34]

1.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.78 [0.76, 4.19]

2 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.05 [0.02, 0.11]

2.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [0.03, 0.39]

2.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.03 [0.01, 0.09]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.19, 0.62]

3.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.10, 0.52]

3.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.23, 1.24]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.20, 0.37]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [0.14, 0.43]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.20, 0.41]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.53, 1.39]

5.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.40, 2.02]

5.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.46, 1.52]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.16, 0.57]

6.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.26, 2.13]

6.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.08, 0.39]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.08, 0.30]

7.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.03, 0.30]

7.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.09, 0.42]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.09, 0.33]

8.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.08, 0.38]

8.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.06, 0.53]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (day)
Comparison 8. Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.95 [1.16, 3.27]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.77, 3.04]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.69 [1.21, 5.98]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.01 [0.79, 5.13]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.62 [0.43, 6.12]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.49 [0.66, 9.33]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.67, 2.80]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.33, 2.22]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.48 [0.86, 7.22]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.62 [1.05, 2.51]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.60, 3.72]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [1.01, 2.74]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.78, 2.17]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.79, 3.16]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.49, 2.21]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.65 [1.30, 5.39]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.31 [0.56, 3.07]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

13.21 [3.64, 47.89]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.10 [1.34, 3.29]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.47 [0.85, 2.53]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

4.38 [2.00, 9.58]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.41, 1.93]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.26, 1.57]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.27 [0.51, 10.16]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Disposable insert pad versus disposable diaper (night)
Comparison 9. Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.01 [1.15, 3.49]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.79 [0.89, 3.57]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.47 [0.98, 6.22]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [0.60, 3.50]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.39, 2.77]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

6.30 [0.80, 49.62]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.69, 2.28]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.33, 1.86]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.91 [0.84, 4.33]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.70 [1.06, 2.73]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.55 [0.80, 3.02]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.86 [0.94, 3.69]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.80, 2.08]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.64, 2.51]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.66, 2.56]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.62 [1.37, 5.01]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.57, 3.27]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

5.82 [2.21, 15.33]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.03 [1.32, 3.12]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.90, 2.61]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.45 [1.67, 7.14]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.41, 1.73]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.30, 1.65]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.35, 5.08]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. Disposable insert pad versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night)
Comparison 10. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.33, 0.89]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.18, 0.73]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.40, 1.65]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.27, 1.77]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.20, 2.24]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.16, 3.30]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.11, 0.48]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.06, 0.44]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.12, 1.02]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.38, 0.91]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.17, 1.19]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.39, 1.03]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.44, 1.17]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.27, 1.12]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.47, 1.76]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.15, 0.51]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.12, 0.70]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.10, 0.62]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.21, 0.52]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.20, 0.63]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.14, 0.60]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.72 [0.75, 3.91]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.53, 4.23]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.17 [0.56, 8.34]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 10. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable insert pad (night)
Comparison 11. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.67, 1.81]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.28, 1.15]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.08 [1.04, 4.17]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.56, 3.43]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.30, 3.89]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.78 [0.49, 6.42]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.24, 1.16]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.07, 0.72]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.38, 3.29]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.65, 1.44]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.26, 1.69]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.67, 1.63]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.54, 1.19]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.38, 1.37]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.51, 1.42]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.52, 2.43]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.15, 1.19]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.94 [1.22, 12.74]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.81, 1.92]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.42, 1.22]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

3.47 [1.68, 7.17]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.55 [0.95, 6.88]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.46, 5.84]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

5.10 [1.04, 25.11]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 11. Disposable pull‐up versus disposable diaper (night)
Comparison 12. Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.66, 1.93]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.37, 1.58]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.82 [0.81, 4.07]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.37, 2.90]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.20, 2.09]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

4.51 [0.57, 35.59]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.20, 0.92]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.08, 0.69]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.26, 2.34]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.70, 1.66]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.24, 1.99]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.73, 1.89]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.62, 1.28]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.42, 1.15]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.69, 2.02]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.50, 1.80]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.19, 1.32]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.56 [0.66, 3.65]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.63, 1.45]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.38, 1.14]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.82, 2.85]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.67, 3.54]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.40, 3.11]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.86 [0.69, 11.76]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 12. Disposable pull‐up versus T‐shaped diaper (night)
Comparison 13. Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.56, 1.66]

1.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.45, 2.08]

1.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.45, 2.08]

2 Prevention of leakage (faeces): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

200

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.30, 2.77]

2.1 women

1

146

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.16, 2.22]

2.2 men

1

54

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.53 [0.33, 19.53]

3 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.42, 1.34]

3.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.38, 1.85]

3.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.27, 1.54]

4 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.71, 1.67]

4.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.38, 2.46]

4.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.69, 1.82]

5 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.73, 1.62]

5.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.57, 1.65]

5.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.69, 2.31]

6 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.45, 1.41]

6.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.55, 2.06]

6.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.12, 1.09]

7 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.40, 0.92]

7.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.49, 1.36]

7.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.18, 0.71]

8 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

4

370

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.34, 1.58]

8.1 women

2

218

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.39, 2.46]

8.2 men

2

152

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.09, 1.53]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 13. Disposable diaper versus disposable T‐shaped diaper (night)
Comparison 14. Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Prevention of leakage (urine): number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.44, 2.62]

1.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.18, 1.38]

1.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

14.29 [2.20, 92.57]

2 Staying in place: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.25, 1.55]

2.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.11, 1.41]

2.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.28, 3.61]

3 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours Show forest plot

2

170

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.40, 0.68]

3.1 women

1

72

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.17, 0.59]

3.2 men

1

98

mean (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.44, 0.77]

4 Skin health problems: number recording a little/a lot versus none Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.55, 1.47]

4.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.21, 1.59]

4.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.59, 1.80]

5 Overall opinion: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.24, 0.73]

5.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.08, 0.45]

5.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.36, 1.54]

6 Preference: number preferring design Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.51, 1.30]

6.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [0.11, 0.55]

6.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [0.82, 2.56]

7 Ease of putting on: number rating design poor versus good/okay Show forest plot

2

170

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.08, 0.40]

7.1 women

1

72

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.08, 0.49]

7.2 men

1

98

odds ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.02, 0.73]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 14. Disposable diaper versus washable diaper (night)