Evidence evaluation of acupuncture and its related therapies for female urinary incontinence: an overview and quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Xiaoli Song, Xinming Yang, Jun Wang and 8 others
PMID 39235256WHAT IT FOUND
Acupuncture was reported better than sham or other treatments for female urinary incontinence in seven reviews, but evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low.
Consider it possible adjunct, not replacement for pelvic floor training.
Key findings
01The included reviews endorsed acupuncture and related therapies as effective and safe for female urinary incontinence, despite limitations in the original trials.
02Electroacupuncture was reported better than sham electroacupuncture for urine leakage, pad test leakage, diary incontinence episodes, questionnaire scores, self-assessment, and clinical effectiveness.
03Across 36 effectiveness results, seven were rated moderate quality, 22 low quality, and seven very low quality.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only seven reviews were included, and each review covered 1 to 15 randomized trials. Of 36 effectiveness results, 22 were low quality and seven very low quality, mainly because original trials had risk of bias. All included reviews failed to report funding sources for each included study, and some did not assess publication bias. Findings varied widely across trials in many included results. Sham acupuncture protocols varied, so comparisons with sham are not fully consistent.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not state the overview authors' own funding or conflicts. Among the included reviews, none reported funding sources for each included study, and only some disclosed financial support or author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that acupuncture works. The included reviews reported benefits, but evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low and the original trials had bias.