| Literature DB >> 26960195 |
Huanfang Xu1, Baoyan Liu1, Jiani Wu1, Ruosang Du1, Xiaoxu Liu1,2, Jinna Yu1, Zhishun Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is a potential conservative therapy for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). There is limited evidence to support its effectiveness due to the poor quality of existing studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26960195 PMCID: PMC4784883 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow diagram of participants.
The flow chart of this study according to the CONSORT Statement.
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Study Population.
| Characteristic | EA Group (n = 40) | Sham EA Group (n = 40) |
|---|---|---|
| Age, year | 59.05 (7.91) | 57.97 (8.42) |
| Educational level- No. (%) | ||
| Primary education or below | 2 (5.00) | 5 (12.50) |
| Secondary education | 30 (75.00) | 21 (52.50) |
| Tertiary education | 8 (20.00) | 14 (35.00) |
| Childbearing- No. (%) | ||
| Yes | 40 (100) | 38 (95.00) |
| No | 0 | 2 (5.00) |
| Number of births- No. (%) | ||
| 0 | 0 | 2 (5.00) |
| 1 | 25 (62.50) | 25 (62.50) |
| 2 | 9 (22.50) | 7 (17.50) |
| ≥3 | 6 (15.00) | 6 (15.00) |
| Initial childbearing age | 24.65 (2.94) | 23.71 (2.84) |
| Number of vaginal deliveries | 1.00 (1.00–2.00) | 1.00 (1.00–2.00) |
| Number of cesarean | 0 | 0 |
| Menopause- No. (%) | ||
| Yes | 31 (77.5) | 30 (75.00) |
| No | 9 (22.5) | 10 (25.00) |
| Hysterectomy- No. (%) | ||
| Yes | 3 (7.5) | 2 (5.00) |
| No | 37 (92.5) | 38 (95.00) |
| BMI | 23.44 (22.09–25.53) | 22.70 (21.47–24.28) |
| Duration of disease, year | 5.04 (2.54–8.81) | 5.00 (2.37–8.07) |
| Ever received SUI treatment- No. (%) | ||
| Yes | 6 (15.0) | 2 (5.0) |
| No | 34 (85.0) | 38 (95.0) |
| Severity of SUI rated by the amount of urine leakage measured by the 1-hour pad test | ||
| Mild (1.1–9.9 g) | 27 (67.5) | 27 (67.5) |
| Moderate (10–49.9 g) | 12 (30.0) | 6 (15.0) |
| Severe (≥50 g) | 1(2.5) | 7 (17.5) |
| Urine leakage measured by the 1-hour pad test | 5.30 (2.33–16.00) | 4.60 (2.30–17.70) |
| 72-hour IEF | 4.00 (2.00–6.75) | 5.00 (1.25–9.00) |
| ICIQ-SF score | 9.08 (4.24) | 8.80 (4.54) |
BMI, body mass index, is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters.
†, Mean (SD);
‡, Median (IOR);
*, p<0.05.
Primary and secondary outcomes of the interventions.
| Outcome | EA Group (n = 40) | Sham-EA Group (n = 40) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 6 | 0.90 (0.40–1.68) | 3.85 (2.13–17.25) | p<0.001 |
| Week 6- change from baseline | 2.50 (1.80–14.60) | 0.05 (-0.28–+0.50) | p = 0.001 |
| Week 6- change from baseline | 2.00 (0.42–3.25) | 0.67 (-0.59–+2.25) | p = 0.09 |
| Week 18- change from baseline | 3.00 (1.06–5.00) | 2.00 (0–5.19) | p = 0.19 |
| Week 30- change from baseline | 3.25 (1.25–5.69) | 1.00 (-0.69–2.88) | p = 0.01 |
| Week 6- change from baseline | 1.75 (0–5.63) | 0 (-1–+1) | p = 0.001 |
| Week 18- change from baseline | 5.60 (4.19) | 2.13 (4.20) | p<0.001 |
| Week 30- change from baseline | 5.89 (4.29) | 1.48 (3.39) | p<0.001 |
| Week 6 | No: 0; Little: 7 (17.5%); Moderate: 11 (27.5%); Great: 22 (55.0%) | No: 15 (37.5%); Little: 14 (35.0%); Moderate: 4 (10.0%); Great: 7 (17.5%) | p<0.001 |
| Week 18 | No: 1 (2.5%); Little: 5 (12.5%); Moderate: 9 (22.5%); Great: 25 (31.3%) | No: 15 (37.5%); Little: 8 (20.0%); Moderate: 5 (12.5%); Great: 12 (15.0%) | p<0.001 |
| Week 30 | No: 1 (2.5%); Little: 4 (10.0%); Moderate: 8 (20.0%); Great: 27 (67.5%) | No: 17 (42.5%); Little: 11 (27.5%); Moderate: 3 (7.5%); Great: 9 (22.5%) | p<0.001 |
ǂ, for the results of change from baseline, positive values indicate improvement from baseline, whereas negative values indicate aggravation;
§, indicates p value for the between-group comparison;
**, p<0.01 for the comparison with baseline;
‡, Median (IOR);
†, Mean (SD).