Anticholinergic drugs versus non‐drug active therapies for non‐neurogenic overactive bladder syndrome in adults

Bhavan Prasad Rai; June D Cody; Ammar Alhasso; Laurence Stewart

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003193.pub4

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

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

Figure 3

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

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 2 Numbers not cured at follow up after treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 3 Numbers not improved at end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 10 Number of micturitions per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 19 Numbers experiencing adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training, Outcome 20 Numbers withdrawing from treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 2 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (objective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 3 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 4 Numbers not improved end of treatment treatment (objective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 5 Nocturia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 6 Number of micturitions per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Anticholinergic	Electric stimulation
Smith 1996	8.1, range 0‐16	6.5, range 0‐18

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 7 Number of pad changes per day‐IVS.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 8 Sensation of urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 9 Number of incontinence episodes per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Trospium hydrochloride 45mg Median (Range)	Intravaginal Electrical Stimulation Median (Range)
Ozdedeli 2010	6 (3.3‐14.7) week 6 (17 participants)	7 (0.6‐15) week 6 (18 participants)

Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 10 Number of micturitions per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Trospium hydrochloride 45mg Median (Range)	Intravaginal Electrical Stimulation Median (Range)
Ozdedeli 2010	2.7 (0‐8) week 6 (17 participants)	1.7 (0‐13) week 6 (18 Participants)

Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 11 Sensation of urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Trospium hydrochloride 45mg Median (Range)	Intravaginal Electrical Stimulation Median (Range)
Ozdedeli 2010	1 (0‐5) week 6 (17 participants)	1 (0‐5) 0.3 (0‐9) week 6 (18 participants)

Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 12 Number of incontinence episodes per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 13 Numbers experiencing adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 14 Numbers withdrawing from treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation, Outcome 15 Quality of Life.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone, Outcome 1 Numbers not cured end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone, Outcome 2 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Antichol. + BT	BT ALONE	Average SD
percentage change from baseline
Park 2002	30.3%	32.6%	27.1%

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone, Outcome 3 Number of micturitions per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Antichol + BT	Antichol. + BT
percentage change from baseline
Park 2002	63.2%	48.4%

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone, Outcome 4 Sensation of urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone, Outcome 5 Numbers experiencing adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 1 Numbers not cured at follow up after treatment (objective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 2 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 3 Numbers with nocturia end of treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 4 Number of micturitions per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 5 Frequency of sensation of urgency.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 6 Number of pad changes per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 7 Number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 8 Numbers experiencing adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 9 Numbers withdrawing from treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 10 Numbers changing dose of treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Anticholinergic + behavioural	Anticholinergic alone
Percentage change from baseline
Mattiasson 2003	87%	81%

Analysis 6.11

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 11 Number of incontinence episodes per day.

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 6.12

Comparison 6 Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone, Outcome 12 Quality of Life.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 2 Numbers not improved at end of treatment (subjective).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 3 Nocturia.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 4 Number of micturitions per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 5 Number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies, Outcome 6 Quality of Life.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	2	56	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.52 [0.26, 1.04]

1.1 Oxybutinin	1	27	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.19 [0.02, 1.39]
1.2 Probantheline 45mg daily	1	29	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.71 [0.34, 1.49]
2 Numbers not cured at follow up after treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	2	56	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.58 [0.16, 2.21]

2.1 Oxybutinin	1	27	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.45, 2.78]
2.2 Probantheline 45mg daily	1	29	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.29 [0.10, 0.83]
3 Numbers not improved at end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	7	346	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.61, 0.91]

3.1 Oxybutynin 5mg daily	2	109	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.50 [0.29, 0.84]
3.2 Oxybutynin 15mg daily	1	27	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.05, 4.53]
3.3 Oxybutynin 45mg daily	1	75	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [0.62, 1.07]
3.4 Probantheline 45mg daily	1	29	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.74, 1.32]
3.5 Tolterodine 4mg daily	2	106	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.53, 1.27]
4 Numbers not improved at follow up after treatment (subjective)	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Numbers with nocturia at end of treatment	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Numbers with nocturia at follow up after treatment	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Number of pad changes per 24hrs	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
8 Number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Mean weight of urine loss on pad test	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Number of micturitions per 24 hours Show forest plot	2	87	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.21 [‐2.87, 2.45]

10.1 Probantheline 45mg daily	1	29	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [‐3.29, 3.49]
10.2 Tolterodine	1	58	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.70 [‐4.99, 3.59]
11 Frequency of sensation of urgency	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
12 Numbers not cured within first year (objective)	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
13 Numbers not cured after first year (objective)	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
14 Number not cured after 5 years (objective)	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
15 Urodynamic diagnosed detrusor overactivity	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
16 General health status (SF‐36)	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
17 Condition‐specific health measures	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
18 Socioeconomic measures	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
19 Numbers experiencing adverse events Show forest plot	4	258	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	14.50 [5.02, 41.87]

19.1 Oxybutynin 15mg daily	1	77	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.24 [2.30, 37.12]
19.2 Oxybutynin 45mg daily	1	75	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	28.26 [1.75, 457.09]
19.3 Tolterodine 4mg daily	2	106	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	17.76 [2.43, 129.70]
20 Numbers withdrawing from treatment Show forest plot	2	139	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.98 [0.46, 8.50]

20.1 Oxybutynin 15mg daily	1	81	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.86 [0.36, 9.58]
20.2 Tolterodine 4mg daily	1	58	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.45 [0.10, 57.85]
21 Numbers changing dose of treatment	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
22 Other outcomes	0	0	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 1. Anticholinergic drugs versus bladder training

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	3	171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.84, 1.05]

1.1 Oxybutinin 2.5 mg tds vs Intravaginal stimulation	1	47	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.88, 1.36]
1.2 Probantheline vs Intravaginal stimulation	1	38	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.64 [0.39, 1.06]
1.3 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1	86	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.90, 1.06]
2 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (objective) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	3	171	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.64 [1.15, 2.34]

3.1 Oxybutinin 2.5 mg tds vs Intravaginal stimulation	1	47	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.46 [0.82, 2.60]
3.2 Probantheline vs Intravaginal stimulation	1	38	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.3 [0.74, 2.28]
3.3 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1	86	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.21 [1.13, 4.33]
4 Numbers not improved end of treatment treatment (objective) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Nocturia Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Number of micturitions per day Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Number of pad changes per day‐IVS Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

8 Sensation of urgency Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

8.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Number of incontinence episodes per day Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

9.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Number of micturitions per day Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

11 Sensation of urgency Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

12 Number of incontinence episodes per day Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

13 Numbers experiencing adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

13.1 Trospium HCl versus intravaginal electrical stimulation	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
14 Numbers withdrawing from treatment Show forest plot	2	149	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.92 [0.48, 17.80]

14.1 Oxybutinin 2.5 mg tds vs Intravaginal stimulation	1	51	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.88 [0.32, 25.92]
14.2 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1	98	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 71.89]
15 Quality of Life Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

15.1 E R Tolterodine 4mg vs PTNS	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 3. Anticholinergic drugs versus external electrostimulation

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Numbers not cured end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	1	52	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.75, 1.16]

1.1 Oxybutynin 5mg daily +Bladder Training vs. Bladder Training	1	52	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.75, 1.16]
2 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	3	164	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.57 [0.38, 0.88]

2.1 Tolterodine 4mg daily +Bladder Training vs.Bladder Training	2	107	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.38, 1.02]
2.2 Oxybutynin 5mg daily + Bladder Training vs. Bladder Training	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.21, 1.08]
3 Number of micturitions per day Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

3.1 percentage change from baseline			Other data	No numeric data
4 Sensation of urgency Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

4.1 percentage change from baseline			Other data	No numeric data
5 Numbers experiencing adverse events Show forest plot	2	107	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	17.57 [2.43, 127.09]

5.1 Tolterodine 4mg daily +Bladder Training vs.Bladder Training	2	107	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	17.57 [2.43, 127.09]

Comparison 5. Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus non‐drug therapies alone

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Numbers not cured at follow up after treatment (objective) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Numbers not improved end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	6		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 Tolterodine + Bladder training vs. Tolterodine	3	602	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.62, 1.04]
2.2 Tolterodine + PFMT vs. Tolterodine	1	475	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.29 [0.85, 1.94]
2.3 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	2	364	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.36, 0.95]
3 Numbers with nocturia end of treatment Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Darifenacin and behavioural modification therapy vs. Darifenacin	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 Trospium chloride + Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training vs. Trospium chloride	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Number of micturitions per 24 hours Show forest plot	6		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 Solifenacin + Bladder training vs. Solifenacin	1	602	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.69 [‐1.11, ‐0.27]
4.2 Tolterodine + PFMT vs. Tolterodine	1	475	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [‐0.87, 0.97]
4.3 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	3	705	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.24 [‐0.98, 0.50]
4.4 Anticholinergic and Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training vs.Anticholinergic .	1	30	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐2.0 [‐3.88, ‐0.12]
5 Frequency of sensation of urgency Show forest plot	3		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 Tolterodine 4mg + PFMT vs tolterodine alone	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.3 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Number of pad changes per day Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6.2 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours Show forest plot	5		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	1	602	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.15 [‐0.42, 0.12]
7.2 Anticholinergic + PFMT vs. Anticholinergic	1	475	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.30 [‐0.12, 0.72]
7.3 Anticholinergic vs.Anticholinergic and Behavioural modification therapy	2	438	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.06 [‐0.47, 0.35]
7.4 Anticholinergic and Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training vs.Anticholinergic .	1	30	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.0 [‐2.12, 0.12]
8 Numbers experiencing adverse events Show forest plot	4		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	4	1257	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.88, 1.07]
9 Numbers withdrawing from treatment Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	2	706	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.44, 1.53]
9.2 Anticholinergic and behavioural modification therapy vs. Anticholinergic	1	395	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.64 [0.93, 2.87]
10 Numbers changing dose of treatment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

10.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
11 Number of incontinence episodes per day Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

11.1 Percentage change from baseline			Other data	No numeric data
12 Quality of Life Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

12.1 Anticholinergic + Bladder training vs. Anticholinergic	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
12.2 Anticholinergic and Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training vs.Anticholinergic .	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 6. Anticholinergic drugs in combination with non‐drug therapies versus anticholinergic drugs alone

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Numbers not cured at end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Oxybutynin vs behavioural	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Numbers not improved at end of treatment (subjective) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2.1 Oxybutynin vs behavioural	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Nocturia Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3.1 Trospium vs. Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Number of micturitions per 24 hours Show forest plot	2	153	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.60 [‐0.21, 1.42]

4.1 Oxybutynin vs. behavioural	1	124	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [‐0.46, 1.26]
4.2 Trospium vs. Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training	1	29	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.2 [‐0.22, 4.62]
5 Number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours Show forest plot	3	203	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.41 [0.11, 0.70]

5.1 Oxybutynin vs. behavioural	2	174	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.32 [0.01, 0.63]
5.2 Trospium 15mgs TDS vs. Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training	1	29	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.4 [0.35, 2.45]
6 Quality of Life Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

6.1 Trospium vs. Inferential current therapy + pelvic floor exercises + Bladder training	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 7. Anticholinergic drugs versus combination non‐drug therapies

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso