Systematic review and economic modelling of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) through systematic review and economic modelling. The Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, electronic databases and the websites of relevant professional organisations and manufacturers, and the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the UKCRN Portfolio Database. The study comprised three distinct elements. (1) A survey of 188 women with SUI to identify outcomes of importance to them (activities of daily living; sex, hygiene and lifestyle issues; emotional health; and the availability of services). (2) A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-surgical treatments for SUI to find out which are most effective by comparing results of trials (direct pairwise comparisons) and by modelling results (mixed-treatment comparisons - MTCs). A total of 88 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs reporting data from 9721 women were identified, considering five generic interventions [pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), electrical stimulation (ES), vaginal cones (VCs), bladder training (BT) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medications], in many variations and combinations. Data were available for 37 interventions and 68 treatment comparisons by direct pairwise assessment. Mixed-treatment comparison models compared 14 interventions, using data from 55 trials (6608 women). (3) Economic modelling, using a Markov model, to find out which combinations of treatments (treatment pathways) are most cost-effective for SUI. Titles and abstracts identified were assessed by one reviewer and full-text copies of all potentially relevant reports independently assessed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus or arbitration by a third person. Direct pairwise comparison and MTC analysis showed that the treatments were more effective than no treatment. Delivering PFMT in a more intense fashion, either through extra sessions or with biofeedback (BF), appeared to be the most effective treatment [PFMT extra sessions vs no treatment (NT) odds ratio (OR) 10.7, 95% credible interval (CrI) 5.03 to 26.2; PFMT + BF vs NT OR 12.3, 95% CrI 5.35 to 32.7]. Only when success was measured in terms of improvement was there evidence that basic PFMT was better than no treatment (PFMT basic vs N