Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

PRISMA study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 3 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence (objective observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence (objective observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 6 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 7 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 8 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 9 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Number of nocturnal voids.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 10 Number of nocturnal voids.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Number of women with frequency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 11 Number of women with frequency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Number of women with nocturia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 12 Number of women with nocturia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Number of women with urgency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 13 Number of women with urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 14 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Volume at first urge to void.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 15 Volume at first urge to void.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Maximum bladder capacity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 16 Maximum bladder capacity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Number with adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 17 Number with adverse effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Number with bacteriuria.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment, Outcome 18 Number with bacteriuria.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Oestrogen

PPA

Oestrogens vs PPA

Beisland 1984 L

9 out of 10 women

10 out of10 women

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence, crossover studies (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 3 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Oestrogen

PPA

Oestrogens vs PPA

Beisland 1984 L

6/10 women

2/10 women

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 4 Number with incontinence not improved, crossover studies (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence (objective observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Number with incontinence (objective observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 7 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 7 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 8 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 8 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 9 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 9 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 10 Adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 10 Adverse effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 11 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 11 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Oestrogen

PPA

Oetrogens versus PPA

Beisland 1984 L

Mean=41.6, N=10

Mean=47.1, N=10

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Oestrogen versus other treatments, Outcome 12 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP), crossover studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 2 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 2 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 3 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 3 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 4 Number of diurnal voids per 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 4 Number of diurnal voids per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number of nocturnal voids per 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number of nocturnal voids per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 6 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 6 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 7 Use of drugs for incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 7 Use of drugs for incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 8 Number of women having incontinence surgery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo, Outcome 8 Number of women having incontinence surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

oestrogen + other drug

oestrogen

oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

Ahlstrom 1990 S

17 out of 27 women

21 out of 26 women

Kinn 1988 S

14 out of 30 women

21 out of 30 women

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) (cross‐over trials).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 4 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 4 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 5 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 5 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 6 Number of women with frequency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 6 Number of women with frequency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 7 Number of women with nocturia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 7 Number of women with nocturia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 8 Number with adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 8 Number with adverse effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

oestrogen + naproxen

oestrogen

oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

Blom 1995 S

172 ml (SD 12) N=16

186 ml (SD 12) N=16

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 9 Volume at first urge to void (cross‐over trials).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Study

oestrogen + naproxen

oestrogen

oestrogen +other vs oestrogen

Blom 1995 S

316 ml (SD 17) N=16

318 ml (SD 20) N=16

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.10

Comparison 4 Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen, Outcome 10 Maximum bladder capacity (cross‐over trials).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 4 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 4 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Adverse effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Adverse effects.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 2 Number of women with nocturia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 2 Number of women with nocturia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 3 Number of women with dysuria.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 3 Number of women with dysuria.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 4 Number of women with urgency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 4 Number of women with urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 5 Number of women with frequency.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 5 Number of women with frequency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 6 Number of adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Different types of oestrogen, Outcome 6 Number of adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 1 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 1 Number of pad changes over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 2 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 2 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 3 Pad test weights.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Different routes of administration, Outcome 3 Pad test weights.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number of voids over 24 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 1 Number of voids over 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 2 Number of nocturnal voids.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 2 Number of nocturnal voids.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 3 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 3 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 4 Volume at first urge to void.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 4 Volume at first urge to void.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 5 Maximum bladder capacity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen, Outcome 5 Maximum bladder capacity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Oestrogen compared to placebo or no treatment for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Oestrogen compared to placebo or no treatment for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Patient or population: patients with urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Settings:
Intervention: Oestrogen
Comparison: placebo or no treatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo or no treatment

Oestrogen

Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations) ‐ Systemic administration (any incontinence)

640 per 1000

845 per 1000
(749 to 948)

RR 1.32
(1.17 to 1.48)

6151
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1

Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations) ‐ Local administration (any incontinence)

888 per 1000

657 per 1000
(568 to 764)

RR 0.74
(0.64 to 0.86)

213
(4 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low2,3

Incontinent episodes over 24 hours ‐ Systemic administration

The mean incontinent episodes over 24 hours ‐ systemic administration in the intervention groups was
0.54 higher
(0.5 lower to 1.57 higher)

82
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Number of women with urgency ‐ Systemic administration

Study population

RR 1.05
(0.83 to 1.33)

89
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate4

750 per 1000

788 per 1000
(622 to 998)

Moderate

767 per 1000

805 per 1000
(637 to 1000)

Number of women with urgency ‐ Local administration

Study population

RR 0.38
(0.15 to 0.99)

90
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate5

289 per 1000

110 per 1000
(43 to 286)

Moderate

290 per 1000

110 per 1000
(44 to 287)

Number with adverse effects ‐ Systemic administration

Study population

RR 13
(1.87 to 90.21)

40
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low6

50 per 1000

650 per 1000
(94 to 1000)

Moderate

50 per 1000

650 per 1000
(94 to 1000)

Number with adverse effects ‐ Local administration

Study population

RR 1.33
(0.32 to 5.61)

144
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate7

42 per 1000

55 per 1000
(13 to 234)

Moderate

34 per 1000

45 per 1000
(11 to 191)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Overall pooled effect is driven by one very large study (Hendrix)
2 High risk of bias in Henalla trial
3 P value for heterogeneity is <0.0003; I2 = 84%
4 P = 0.22 for heterogeneity (women with urgency ‐ systemic)
5 P = 0.09 for heterogeneity , I2 = 64% (women with urgency ‐ local)
6 Wide CI for Rufford trial (adverse effects for systemic)
7 Wide CI for pooled estimate (adverse effects of local)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Oestrogen compared to placebo or no treatment for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 2. Oestrogen versus other treatments for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Oestrogen versus other treatments for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Patient or population: patients with urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Settings:
Intervention: Oestrogen versus other treatments

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Oestrogen versus other treatments

Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) ‐ Oestrogen vs PPA

Study population

RR 0.83
(0.63 to 1.09)

57
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

833 per 1000

692 per 1000
(525 to 908)

Moderate

867 per 1000

720 per 1000
(546 to 945)

Adverse effects ‐ oestrogen vs PPA

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

30
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Relative risk reduction greater than 25% in pooled estimate
2 One trial (Hilton) measured outcome, confidence interval crosses line of no effect

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Oestrogen versus other treatments for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 3. Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women

Patient or population: patients with urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Settings:
Intervention: Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo

Incontinent episodes over 24 hours ‐ oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

The mean incontinent episodes over 24 hours ‐ oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo in the intervention groups was
0.43 lower
(1.17 lower to 0.31 higher)

83
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observation) ‐ oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo

663 per 1000

736 per 1000
(689 to 782)

RR 1.11
(1.04 to 1.18)

10,635
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate2

Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) ‐ oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo (Copy)

Study population

RR 1.08
(1.01 to 1.16)

1514
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

663 per 1000

716 per 1000
(669 to 769)

Moderate

608 per 1000

657 per 1000
(614 to 705)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Confidence interval crosses line of no effect (‐0.20, 0.48)
2 Confidence interval of Fantl trial crosses line of no effect

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo for urinary incontinence in post‐menopausal women
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 1. Summary of study characteristics: type of oestrogen, route of administration, dose, length of treatment, population

Study ID

Type of Oestrogen

Route of administration

Dose

Length of treatment

Population

Ahlstrom 1990 S

Oestriol

Systemic (oral)

4mg

6 weeks

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Assassa 2003 L

Oestrogen

Local (vaginal ring)

?

3 months

UI, postmenopausal

Beisland 1984 L

Oestriol

Local (vaginal)

1 mg

8 weeks

UI (stress), postmenopausal

Blom 1995 S

Estradiol

Systemic (transdermal)

0.05 mg

8 weeks

UUI (OAB), elderly

Cardozo 1993 S

Oestriol

Systemic (oral)

3 mg

3 months

UUI (urge), postmenopausal

Cardozo 2001 L

Oestradiol

Vaginal (pessary, Vagifem)

25 µgm

3 months

OAB (urge), postmenopausal

Dessole 2004 L

Oestriol

Local (intravaginal ovules)

1‐2 mg

6 months

UI (stress), postmenopausal

Ek 1980 S

Oestradiol

Systemic (oral)

1 mg

6 weeks

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Enzelsberger 1990 L

Oestriol

Local (vaginal)

0.5, 1 or 2 mg

Not stated

UI (urge), OAB

Enzelsberger 1991a L; Enzelsberger 1991b L

Oestriol

Local (vaginal)

1 mg or 3 mg

3 weeks

UI (urge), OAB, postmenopausal

Fantl 1996 S

Conjugated equine oestrogens + medroxyprogesterone

Systemic (oral)

0.625 mg / 10 mg

3 months

UI (stress), postmenopausal

Grady 2001 S

Conjugated oestrogens (premarin) + medroxyprogesterone

Systemic (oral)

0.625 mg / 2.5 mg

up to 4 years

UI (unspecified), postmenopausal, heart disease, age <80 years, with uterus

Henalla 1989 L

Conjugated equine oestrogen

Local (vaginal cream)

1.25 mg

3 months

USI (stress)

Henalla 1990 L

Conjugated equine oestrogen

Local (vaginal cream)

2 gm

6 weeks

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Hendrix (hysterectomy) S

Conjugated equine oestrogen

Systemic (oral)

0.625 mg

1 year

UI (SUI, UUI, MUI), postmenopausal, prevention of heart disease and hip fracture

Without uterus

Hendrix (no hysterect) S

Conjugated equine oestrogen + medroxyprogesterone

Systemic (oral)

0.625 mg / 2.5 mg

1 year

UI (SUI, UUI, MUI), postmenopausal, prevention of heart disease and hip fracture

With uterus

Hilton 1990 SL

Oestrogen

Local (intravaginal)

Systemic (oral)

2 gm

1.25 mg

1 month

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Ishiko 2001 S

Estriol

Systemic (oral)

1 mg

2 years

SUI (stress), postmenopausal

Jackson 1999 S

Oestradiol

Systemic (oral)

2 mg

6 months

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Judge 1969 S

Quinestradiol

Not stated

1 mg

1 month

UI (unspecified), postmenopausal, geriatric inpatients

Kinn 1988 S

Oestriol

Systemic (oral)

4 mg

1 month

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Kurz 1993 L

Oestriol

Local (intravesical)

1 mg

3 weeks

UUI, OAB (urge), postmenopausal

Liapis 2010 L

Oestradiol

Local (intravaginal tablets)

25 mcg

6 months

SUI

Lose 2000 L

Oestradiol

Local (intravaginal ring, vaginal pessaries)

ring 7.5mg, pessary 0.5 mg

6 months

UI (unspecified), LUT symptoms, postmenopausal

Melis 1997 L

Oestriol

Local (intravaginal)

0.5 mg

3 months

UI, menopausal symptoms

Ouslander 2001 S

Oestrogen + progesterone

Systemic (oral)

0.625 mg / 2.5 mg

6 months

UI (unspecified), nursing home residents

Rufford 2003 S

17‐beta oestradiol

Systemic (implant)

25 mg

6 months

UUI, OAB (urge), postmenopausal

Sacco 1990 L

Oestrogen

Local (cream)

0.5 mg

3 months

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Samsioe 1985 S

Oestriol

Systemic (oral)

3 mg

3 months

MUI (mixture), postmenopausal

Tinelli 2007 L

Oestradiol

Systemic (oral)

10 mg

12 months

SUI

Tseng 2007 L

Oestrogen

Local (vaginal)

1 gm

12 weeks

OAB

Walter 1978 S

Oestradiol + oestriol

Systemic (oral)

2 mg / 1 mg

4 months (with breaks)

SUI, MUI (stress and mixed), postmenopausal

Walter 1990 S

Oestriol

Systemic (oral)

4 mg

1‐2 months

SUI (stress), postmenopausal

Wilson 1987 S

Piperazine oestrone sulphate

Systemic (oral)

3 mg

3 months (with breaks)

USI (stress), postmenopausal

Zullo 2005 L

Estriol

Local (intravaginal ovules)

1 mg

6 months

SUI (stress), postmenopausal

LUTs = lower urinary tract symptoms; MUI = mixed urinary incontinence; OAB = overactive bladder syndrome; SUI = stress urinary incontinence; UI = urinary incontinence; USI = urodynamic stress incontinence; UUI = urgency urinary incontinence.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of study characteristics: type of oestrogen, route of administration, dose, length of treatment, population
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence (women's observations) Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Systemic administration

4

197

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.70, 0.98]

1.2 Local administration

2

144

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.62, 0.87]

2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Systemic administration

5

231

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.58, 0.93]

2.2 Local administration

4

213

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.43, 0.65]

3 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations) Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Systemic administration (any incontinence)

6

6151

Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [1.17, 1.48]

3.2 Local administration (any incontinence)

4

213

Risk Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.86]

4 Number with incontinence (objective observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Local administration

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Local administration

2

52

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.57, 0.95]

6 Number of pad changes over 24 hours Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Systemic administration

3

112

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.89, 0.66]

7 Pad test weights Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Systemic administration

3

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.75 [‐5.67, 9.16]

8 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Systemic administration

2

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [‐0.50, 1.57]

9 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Systemic administration

3

125

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐1.22, 0.73]

9.2 Local administration

4

112

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.80 [‐2.58, ‐1.03]

10 Number of nocturnal voids Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Systemic administration

2

112

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.40, 0.16]

10.2 Local administration

3

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.03 [‐2.82, ‐1.24]

11 Number of women with frequency Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Systemic administration

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.89, 2.19]

11.2 Local administration

2

90

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.19, 0.98]

12 Number of women with nocturia Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Systemic administration

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.62, 1.62]

12.2 Local administration

1

34

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.11, 2.38]

13 Number of women with urgency Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Systemic administration

2

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.83, 1.33]

13.2 Local administration

2

90

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.15, 0.99]

14 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Systemic administration

2

89

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.41 [‐6.24, 3.43]

14.2 Local administration

5

202

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.35 [2.49, 6.22]

15 Volume at first urge to void Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Systemic administration

3

153

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.09 [‐25.45, 43.62]

15.2 Local administration

4

116

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

19.09 [13.21, 24.96]

16 Maximum bladder capacity Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Systemic administration

3

153

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.18 [‐33.26, 47.62]

16.2 Local administration

4

116

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

50.11 [35.81, 64.41]

17 Number with adverse effects Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 Systemic administration

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

13.0 [1.87, 90.21]

17.2 Local administration

2

144

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.32, 5.61]

18 Number with bacteriuria Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Systemic administration

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.37, 1.42]

18.2 Local administration

1

88

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.3 [0.13, 0.68]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Oestrogen versus placebo or no treatment
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Oestrogen versus other treatments

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence (women's observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number with incontinence, crossover studies (women's observations) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

2.1 Oestrogens vs PPA

Other data

No numeric data

3 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

2

57

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.63, 1.09]

4 Number with incontinence not improved, crossover studies (women's observations) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

4.1 Oestrogens vs PPA

Other data

No numeric data

5 Number with incontinence (objective observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Number with incontinence not improved (objective observations) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

1

29

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.46, 1.90]

6.2 Oestrogen vs PFMT

2

69

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.30 [1.50, 3.52]

6.3 Oestrogen vs electrostimulation

1

49

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.95, 1.75]

7 Number of pad changes over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Oestrogen vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Pad test weights Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 oestrogen vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Adverse effects Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 oestrogen vs PPA

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 oestrogen vs PFMT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 oestrogen vs electrostimulation

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP), crossover studies Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

12.1 Oetrogens versus PPA

Other data

No numeric data
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Oestrogen versus other treatments
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

2

1514

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [1.01, 1.16]

2 Incontinence not improved (generic inverse variance) (women's observations) Show forest plot

3

Relative Risk (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Systemic administration of oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

3

10635

Relative Risk (Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [1.04, 1.18]

3 Incontinent episodes over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of diurnal voids per 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of nocturnal voids per 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Pad test weights Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Use of drugs for incontinence Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Number of women having incontinence surgery Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 oestrogen + progesterone vs placebo

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Oestrogen + other treatments versus placebo
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) (cross‐over trials) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

2.1 oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

Other data

No numeric data

3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Pad test weights Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Number of women with frequency Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 oestriol + benzidamine vs oestriol

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Number of women with nocturia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 oestriol + benzidamine vs oestriol

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Number with adverse effects Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 Oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Volume at first urge to void (cross‐over trials) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

9.1 oestrogen + PPA vs oestrogen

Other data

No numeric data

10 Maximum bladder capacity (cross‐over trials) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

10.1 oestrogen +other vs oestrogen

Other data

No numeric data
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Oestrogen + other treatments versus oestrogen
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 5. Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence (women's observations) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 oestrogen + PFMT vs PFMT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Vaginal oestrogen + TVT vs TVT

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 oestrogen + PPA vs PPA

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number of pad changes over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 oestrogen + PPA vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 oestrogen + PPA vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 detrusitol + vaginal oestrogen vs detrusitol m

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Pad test weights Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 oestrogen + PPA vs PPA

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Adverse effects Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 oestrogen + PPA vs PPA

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 oestrogen + PFMT vs PFMT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Oestrogen + other treatments versus other treatments
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 6. Different types of oestrogen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number with incontinence not improved (women's observations) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number of women with nocturia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number of women with dysuria Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of women with urgency Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 oestrogen cream vs vaginal oestrogen + progesterone

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of women with frequency Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 oestrogen cream vs vaginal oestrogen + progesterone

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Number of adverse events Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 oestradiol ring vs oestriol pessary

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Different types of oestrogen
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 7. Different routes of administration

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of pad changes over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 oestrogen cream vs oestrogen orally

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 oestrogen cream vs oestrogen orally

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Pad test weights Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 oestrogen cream vs oestrogen orally

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Different routes of administration
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 8. High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of voids over 24 hours Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 high dose vs low dose

2

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.02 [‐1.87, ‐0.16]

2 Number of nocturnal voids Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 high dose vs low dose

2

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.80 [‐2.36, ‐1.24]

3 Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 high dose vs low dose

2

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.84 [‐5.77, 13.46]

4 Volume at first urge to void Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 high dose vs low dose

2

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.56 [‐12.20, 9.08]

5 Maximum bladder capacity Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 high dose vs low dose

2

65

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

34.90 [8.35, 61.45]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. High‐dose versus low‐dose oestrogen
Ir a la tabla de la revisión