Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Adult Women: Diagnosis and Comparative Effectiveness
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I, Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Suggested citation: Shamliyan T, Wyman J, Kane RL. Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Adult Women: Diagnosis and Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 36. (Prepared by the University of Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10064-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11(12)-EHC074-EF. Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2012. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10064-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Steps to reproduce
We calculated relative risk, absolute risk differences, number needed to treat (NNT), and the number of events attributable to active treatment per 1,000 persons treated for binary outcomes. We used the number of randomized subjects forcing intention to treat principles independent of the ambulatory studies analyses. We calculated mean differences from the reported means and standard deviations among randomized to active and control treatments. We used correction coefficients, forced intention to treat, and recommended calculations for missing data. We used Meta-Analyst and STATA (Statistics/Data analysis, 10.1) software to calculate individual study estimates with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI).