Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2019
Evaluation of the IncoStress device for urinary incontinence: a feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Tolerance of the Tampsec Vaginal Tampon for Treating Stress Urinary Incontinence. A Randomized Controlled Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- Scientific evidence for pelvic floor devices presented at conferences: An overview.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruitment to and outcomes from a pilot randomised study of the IncoStress device as an adjunct to conservative treatment for urinary incontinence.
methodsWomen with urinary incontinence were randomised on a 2:1 basis to usual care (control) or usual care plus use of the IncoStress device (intervention). Process outcomes (retention and compliance) were recorded plus symptom outcomes (IQOL and ICIQ-FLUTS questionnaires). A sample of participants took part in an interview to understand the frequency of use of the device and satisfaction.
resultsEighty women (51 intervention, 29 control) were recruited. Follow-up responses were obtained from 34 intervention group (66.7%) and 17 (58.6%) control patients. Women used the device for a median 3 days a week (0-7), 18 out of 34 (53%) found it easy to use and 21 (61.8%) were satisfied with the device. Median IQOL score in the intervention group improved from a baseline of 42.4 (0-94) to 68.2 (5-98) at follow-up and in the control group from 45.5 (0-88) to 53.0 (0-94). Median ICIQ-FLUTS score in the intervention group improved from 14.5 (6-35) to 12.5 (4-26) and in the control group from 15.0 (5-35) to 14.0 (6-38).
conclusionsRecruitment and randomisation were feasible and robust. This study demonstrates that a large-scale RCT is feasible and the IncoStress has potential value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.