↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
70 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
335 Mendeley
Title
Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003505.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Imamura, Kate Williams, Mandy Wells, Catherine McGrother

Abstract

Low cost, non-invasive alterations in lifestyle are frequently recommended by healthcare professionals or those presenting with incontinence. However, such recommendations are rarely based on good evidence. The objective of the review was to determine the effectiveness of specific lifestyle interventions (i.e. weight loss; dietary changes; fluid intake; reduction in caffeinated, carbonated and alcoholic drinks; avoidance of constipation; stopping smoking; and physical activity) in the management of adult urinary incontinence. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 3 July 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We incorporated the results of these searches fully in the review. We undertook an updated search of the Specialised Register, which now includes searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, on 27 October 2014; potentially eligible studies from this search are currently awaiting classification. Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of community-based lifestyle interventions compared with no treatment, other conservative therapies, or pharmacological interventions for the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials. Data were combined in a meta-analysis when appropriate. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 11 trials in the review, involving a total of 5974 participants.Four trials involving 4701 women compared weight loss programmes with a control intervention. Low quality evidence from one trial suggested that more women following weight loss programmes reported improvement in symptoms of incontinence at six months (163/214 (76%) versus 49/90 (54%), risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.71), and this effect was sustained at 18 months (N = 291, 75% versus 62%, RR not estimable, reported P value 0.02). No data were available for self-reported cure and quality of life. One of the weight loss trials involving 1296 women reported very low quality evidence for a reduction in weekly urinary incontinence a mean of 2.8 years after following a lifestyle weight loss intervention that had been compared with a pharmacological weight loss intervention.Three trials involving 181 women and 11 men compared change in fluid intake with no change. Limited, very low quality evidence suggested that symptom-specific quality of life scores improved when fluid intake was reduced, although some people reported headaches, constipation or thirst. A further three trials involving 160 women and nine men compared reduction in caffeinated drinks with no change, and one trial involving 42 women compared a soy-rich diet with soy-free diet. However, it was not possible to reach any conclusions about the effects of these changes, due to methodological limitations, that resulted in very low quality evidence.Adverse effects appeared relatively uncommon for all interventions studied.All included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias across all bias parameters, but most notably for allocation concealment. The main factors for our downgrading of the evidence were risk of bias, indirect evidence (less than 12 months of follow-up; and not all participants having confirmed urinary incontinence at baseline in some studies), and imprecise results with wide confidence intervals.Other interventions such as reduction in consumption of sweetened fizzy or diet drinks; reduction in alcohol consumption; avoiding constipation; smoking cessation; restricting strenuous physical forces; or reducing high levels of, or increasing low levels of, physical activity, could not be assessed in this review, as no evidence from randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials was available. Evidence for the effect of weight loss on urinary incontinence is building and should be a research priority. Generally, there was insufficient evidence to inform practice reliably about whether lifestyle interventions are helpful in the treatment of urinary incontinence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 333 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 19%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 10%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 69 21%
Unknown 69 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 19%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Sports and Recreations 8 2%
Other 40 12%
Unknown 87 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#641,987
of 19,515,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,476
of 11,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,997
of 388,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,515,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.