MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2949995291 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30205-0

Exercise intervention in the management of urinary incontinence in older women in villages in Bangladesh: a cluster randomised trial

2019· article· en· W2949995291 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Adrian Wagg, Zafrullah Chowdhury, Jean‐Michel Galarneau, Rezaul Haque, Fardous Kabir, Dianna MacDonald, Kamrun Naher, Yutaka Yasui, Nicola Cherry

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Global Health · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePelvic floor disorders treatments
Établissements canadiensAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Alberta
Mots-clésUrinary incontinenceMedicineCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Intervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyGerontologyFamily medicineNursingInternal medicineUrology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Group exercise-based programmes for urinary incontinence appear to be promising low-cost interventions for women in developing countries, but no evidence exists to support whether they could be implemented or effective in such populations. We aimed to evaluate whether a group intervention that comprised pelvic floor muscle training, mobility exercises, and bladder education would be more effective than education alone, and report changes between villages (ie, clusters) rather than between individual participants. METHODS: In this cluster randomised trial, we recruited women from 16 pairs of villages in Bangladesh, with each pair comprising similar villages from the same sub-district. Women aged 60-75 years were interviewed to establish eligibility. Women were eligible if they had current urinary incontinence, and were excluded if they had a third degree or higher uterine prolapse, if they were unable to walk or stand without help, or if they had insufficient intellectual capacity to understand questions and follow instructions. The villages were randomly assigned within each pair to either exercise plus education or education-only intervention by use of a random number generator from a fixed seed. Women were excluded after consenting if they lived too far from the centre of the village. The exercise intervention was a physiotherapist-led group exercise class that was held twice weekly for 12 weeks, with home exercises between classes and to 24 weeks. Both groups received bladder-health education. Participants were followed up for 24 weeks. A 3-day continence record was collected at recruitment and every 4 weeks up until 24 weeks. This record involved the participant tying a knot in ribbons worn under the clothing each time they had an episode of urinary leakage. The primary outcome was change in number of knots (recorded leakage episodes) from recruitment to 24 weeks. Safety was assessed in all participants in the exercise intervention group. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02453100. FINDINGS: Between Aug 22, 2015, and July 2, 2018, of 3577 women aged 60-75 years identified, 1003 were eligible, of whom 625 consented to participate (n=335 exercise plus education villages, and n=290 in education-only villages). Of these consenting women, 46 were excluded (n=37 exercise plus education, n=9 education only) because they lived too far from the centre of the village. At week 24, 283 (95%) of 298 in the exercise plus education group and 274 (98%) of 281 in the education-only group completed a 3-day continence record. The estimate of change in number of leakage episodes between baseline and 24 weeks was -7·7 (95% CI -10·6 to -4·8) at the village level in an unadjusted model, and -6·64 (-7·95 to -5·33) in a random-effects model accounting for cluster randomisation. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: A structured group-exercise intervention has the potential to manage urinary incontinence in older women in communities largely outside the reach of pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,158
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,358

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,327
Écart entre enseignants0,311 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2019
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Global HealthMême sujetPelvic floor disorders treatmentsTravaux en français237 207