Biofeedback for Nonneuropathic Daytime Voiding Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biofeedback has been used to treat children with symptoms of bladder dysfunction not responding to standard therapy alone. However, evidence of the effectiveness of biofeedback is scarce and is based on small studies. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the effects of biofeedback as adjunctive therapy for symptoms of nonneuropathic voiding disorders in children up to age 18 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE(®), Embase(®) and CENTRAL on the OvidSP(®) platform as well as conference proceedings for randomized trials presented at scientific conventions, symposia and workshops through August 13, 2013. Hand searches and review of reference lists of retrieved articles were also performed. RESULTS: Five eligible studies were included in the systematic review, of which 4 (382 participants) were pooled in the meta-analysis based on available outcomes data. The overall proportion of cases with resolved incontinence at month 6 was similar in the biofeedback and control groups (OR 1.37 [95% CI 0.64 to 2.93], RD 0.07 [-0.09, 0.23]). There was also no significant difference in mean maximum urinary flow rate (mean difference 0.50 ml, range -0.56 to 1.55) or likelihood of urinary tract infection (OR 1.30 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.58]). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the effectiveness of biofeedback in the management of children with nonneuropathic voiding disorders. More high quality, randomized controlled trials are needed to better evaluate the effect of biofeedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.072 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".