Evidence Hub

A comparison of a step-initiation task in women with and without urinary incontinence. A case-control study

Chmielewska D, Sobota GS, Stania M, Błaszczak E, Słomka K, Juras G

Neurourology and urodynamics, 2018

22 participants

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of the study was to objectively determine differences in postural response by women with and without urinary incontinence during a step-initiation task depending on the degree of bladder filling.

METHODS: The study comprised 22 women with stress urinary incontinence and 20 women without urinary incontinence. All women participated in four trials: unperturbed and perturbed (obstacle crossing) transition between platforms, step-up and step-down trials. Velocities of center of pressure displacement, double-support period, time from exit from steady standing until the lead foot resting on the other platform and time from raising the foot from the first platform until gaining quiet standing on the other platform were measured and compared.

RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the performance of a step-initiation task by incontinent women with full/empty bladder whereas continent women performed differently during unperturbed transition with full/empty bladder. The step-up trial revealed significant intergroup differences. The antero-posterior mean velocity of center of pressure during the empty bladder test was significantly higher in women with stress urinary incontinence (effect size = 1.02). During the same bladder condition the women with stress urinary incontinence performed significantly more slowly in unperturbed (effect size = 1.09) and perturbed (effect size = 0.84) transition compared to control group.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 22 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free