Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bladder training for urinary incontinence in adults

Open access
Wallace, Sheila A, Roe, Brenda, Williams, Kate, Palmer, Mary·2004·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common and distressing problem. Bladder training aims to increase the interval between voids and is widely used for the treatment of urinary incontinence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bladder training for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (January 2003). The reference lists of relevant articles were searched, and trialists contacted for details of other trials. Date of the most recent search: January 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of bladder training for the treatment of any type of urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. Five primary outcomes were prespecified: participant's perception of cure of urinary incontinence; participant's perception of improvement of urinary incontinence; number of incontinent episodes; number of micturitions; and quality of life. Adverse events were also noted. Three hypotheses were tested: bladder training is better than no bladder training; bladder training is better than other treatments; and combining bladder training with another treatment is better than that other treatment alone. MAIN RESULTS: We assessed 73 reports of 36 potentially relevant trials; 28 reports of ten trials were eligible for inclusion with a total of 1366, predominantly female, participants. Not all participants' with overactive bladder, in five trials had urinary incontinence. Data from five trials with 467 participants, all female, are therefore included in the review. The quality of trials was variable. Few data describing long term follow up are available.Is bladder training better than no bladder training? Data were available for 149 women from two trials comparing bladder training with no bladder training. These described only a limited number of prespecified outcomes, which varied across the two trials. Point estimates of effect favoured bladder training however confidence intervals were wide and no statistically significant differences were found for primary outcome variables.Is bladder training better than other treatments? Only two trials including 125 women compared bladder training with drugs: one with oxybutynin and one with imipramine plus flavoxate. In the former trial the only outcomes demonstrating a statistically significant difference were participant's perception of cure at six months (RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.34) and adverse events (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.44), both favouring bladder training. In the latter trial participant's perception of cure immediately after treatment just achieved statistical significance (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.21) favouring bladder training, and this difference was maintained at approximately two months post treatment. One comparison of bladder training with pelvic floor muscle training plus biofeedback included 132 women: none of the differences in the primary outcomes achieved statistical significance.Is combining bladder training with another treatment better than that other treatment alone? One trial compared pelvic floor muscle training plus biofeedback supplemented with bladder training versus pelvic floor muscle training plus biofeedback alone and included 125 women. Of the primary outcomes both participants' perception of improvement and quality of life, both immediately after treatment, achieved statistical significance, favouring the bladder training combined with pelvic floor muscle training and biofeedback group (perception of improvement: RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39; quality of life: MD -47.20; 95% CI -87.03 to -7.37), this was not sustained at three months. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence available suggests that bladder training may be helpful for the treatment of urinary incontinence, but this conclusion can only be tentative as the trials were of variable quality and of small size with wide confidence intervals around the point estimates of effect. There was also not enough evidence to determine w evidence to determine whether bladder training was useful as a supplement to another therapy. Definitive research has yet to be conducted: more research is required.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001308.pub2

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Wallace, S. A., Roe, B., Williams, K., & Palmer, M.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01-26
Volume
2009
Issue
1
Pages
CD001308-CD001308
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2127955638
Cited by
287
References
44
FWCI
15.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bladder training for urinary incontinence in adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001308.pub2
The paper
Wallace, S. A., Roe, B., Williams, K., & Palmer, M. (2004). Bladder training for urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001308.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.