ABSTRACT
Contexto: La electroestimulación (EE) es una de las técnicas empleadas en el tratamiento conservador de la incontinencia urinaria (IU) y/o síndrome de vejiga hiperactiva (SVH). Sin embargo, existe controversia en la literatura científica acerca de su eficacia como monoterapia. Objetivo: Evaluar la evidencia científica sobre la EE del suelo pélvico en mujeres con IU y/o SVH. Adquisición de evidencia: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de ensayos clínicos en las bases de datos PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, Elsevier (Doyma) y EnFisPo (1980-2011). Se evaluó la calidad de los estudios y se extrajo la información de los que reunieron los criterios de inclusión establecidos. Síntesis de evidencia: Un total de 27 ensayos clínicos han sido incluidos en la revisión: 13 ensayos controlados aleatorizados, 11 ensayos aleatorizados no controlados y 3 ensayos no aleatorizados. Conclusión: La mayor parte de los ensayos clínicos concluyen que la EE es eficaz en el tratamiento de la IU y el SVH en mujeres. Sin embargo, son necesarios más estudios de buena calidad metodológica para obtener un mayor nivel de evidencia científica y conocer cuál es la modalidad, tipo y parámetros de corriente óptimas para cada tipo de IU y el SVH (AU)
Context: Electrostimulation (ES) is one of the techniques employed in conservative treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) and/or overactive bladder syndrome (OAB). Nevertheless, there is controversy in the scientific literature regarding its effectiveness as monotherapy. Objective: To evaluate the scientific evidence on ES of the pelvic floor in women with UI and with/without OAB. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of clinical trials was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, Elsevier (Doyma) and EnFisPo (1980-2011). Quality of study registries was evaluated and information was obtained from those that presented the inclusion criteria established in the review. Evidence synthesis: The 27 clinical trials were included in the review: 13 randomized controlled trials, 11 randomized non-controlled trials and 3 non-randomized trials. Conclusion: Most of the clinical trials conclude that ES is effective in the treatment of UI and OAB in women. However, better methodological quality studies are needed to obtain a higher level of scientific evidence and to know the optimal current modality, type and parameters for each type of UI and OAB (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Urinary Incontinence/diagnosis , Urinary Incontinence/radiotherapy , Urinary Bladder, Overactive/diagnosis , Urinary Bladder, Overactive/therapy , Electric Stimulation/instrumentation , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Pelvic Floor/physiopathology , Pelvic Floor/radiation effects , Pelvic Floor , Evidence-Based Medicine/methodsABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Electrostimulation (ES) is one of the techniques employed in conservative treatment of urinary incontinence (UI) and/or overactive bladder syndrome (OAB). Nevertheless, there is controversy in the scientific literature regarding its effectiveness as monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scientific evidence on ES of the pelvic floor in women with UI and with/without OAB. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of clinical trials was carried out in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, PEDro, Elsevier (Doyma) and EnFisPo (1980-2011). Quality of study registries was evaluated and information was obtained from those that presented the inclusion criteria established in the review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The 27 clinical trials were included in the review: 13 randomized controlled trials, 11 randomized non-controlled trials and 3 non-randomized trials. CONCLUSION: Most of the clinical trials conclude that ES is effective in the treatment of UI and OAB in women. However, better methodological quality studies are needed to obtain a higher level of scientific evidence and to know the optimal current modality, type and parameters for each type of UI and OAB.