Cargando…
Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4307223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509 |
_version_ | 1782354423557652480 |
---|---|
author | Thomas, Lois H Watkins, Caroline L Sutton, Christopher J Forshaw, Denise Leathley, Michael J French, Beverley Burton, Christopher R Cheater, Francine Roe, Brenda Britt, David Booth, Joanne McColl, Elaine |
author_facet | Thomas, Lois H Watkins, Caroline L Sutton, Christopher J Forshaw, Denise Leathley, Michael J French, Beverley Burton, Christopher R Cheater, Francine Roe, Brenda Britt, David Booth, Joanne McColl, Elaine |
author_sort | Thomas, Lois H |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated with stroke patients. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a systematic voiding programme (SVP) for the management of UI after stroke. Stroke services were randomised to receive SVP (n = 4), SVP plus supported implementation (SVP+, n = 4), or usual care (UC, n = 4). Feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention. The main effectiveness outcome was presence or absence of UI at six and 12 weeks post-stroke. Additional effectiveness outcomes included were the effect of the intervention on different types of UI, continence status at discharge, UI severity, functional ability, quality of life, and death. RESULTS: It was possible to recruit patients (413; 164 SVP, 125 SVP+, and 124 UC) and participant retention was acceptable (85% and 88% at six and 12 weeks, respectively). There was no suggestion of a beneficial effect on the main outcome at six (SVP versus UC: odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.94; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.37) or 12 weeks (SVP versus UC: OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.93; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.09). No secondary outcomes showed a strong suggestion of clinically meaningful improvement in SVP and/or SVP+ arms relative to UC at six or 12 weeks. However, at 12 weeks both intervention arms had higher estimated odds of continence than UC for patients with urge incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The trial has met feasibility outcomes of participant recruitment and retention. It was not powered to demonstrate effectiveness, but there is some evidence of a potential reduction in the odds of specific types of incontinence. A full trial should now be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN08609907, date of registration: 7 July 2010. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-509) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4307223 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43072232015-01-28 Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial Thomas, Lois H Watkins, Caroline L Sutton, Christopher J Forshaw, Denise Leathley, Michael J French, Beverley Burton, Christopher R Cheater, Francine Roe, Brenda Britt, David Booth, Joanne McColl, Elaine Trials Research BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects half of patients hospitalised after stroke and is often poorly managed. Cochrane systematic reviews have shown some positive impact of conservative interventions (such as bladder training) in reducing UI, but their effectiveness has not been demonstrated with stroke patients. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a systematic voiding programme (SVP) for the management of UI after stroke. Stroke services were randomised to receive SVP (n = 4), SVP plus supported implementation (SVP+, n = 4), or usual care (UC, n = 4). Feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention. The main effectiveness outcome was presence or absence of UI at six and 12 weeks post-stroke. Additional effectiveness outcomes included were the effect of the intervention on different types of UI, continence status at discharge, UI severity, functional ability, quality of life, and death. RESULTS: It was possible to recruit patients (413; 164 SVP, 125 SVP+, and 124 UC) and participant retention was acceptable (85% and 88% at six and 12 weeks, respectively). There was no suggestion of a beneficial effect on the main outcome at six (SVP versus UC: odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.94; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.37) or 12 weeks (SVP versus UC: OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.93; SVP+ versus UC: OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.09). No secondary outcomes showed a strong suggestion of clinically meaningful improvement in SVP and/or SVP+ arms relative to UC at six or 12 weeks. However, at 12 weeks both intervention arms had higher estimated odds of continence than UC for patients with urge incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The trial has met feasibility outcomes of participant recruitment and retention. It was not powered to demonstrate effectiveness, but there is some evidence of a potential reduction in the odds of specific types of incontinence. A full trial should now be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN08609907, date of registration: 7 July 2010. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-509) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4307223/ /pubmed/25539714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509 Text en © Thomas et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Thomas, Lois H Watkins, Caroline L Sutton, Christopher J Forshaw, Denise Leathley, Michael J French, Beverley Burton, Christopher R Cheater, Francine Roe, Brenda Britt, David Booth, Joanne McColl, Elaine Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title | Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title_full | Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title_fullStr | Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title_short | Identifying continence options after stroke (ICONS): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
title_sort | identifying continence options after stroke (icons): a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4307223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-509 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasloish identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT watkinscarolinel identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT suttonchristopherj identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT forshawdenise identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT leathleymichaelj identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT frenchbeverley identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT burtonchristopherr identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT cheaterfrancine identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT roebrenda identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT brittdavid identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT boothjoanne identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT mccollelaine identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial AT identifyingcontinenceoptionsafterstrokeiconsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial |