Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):CD001406.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001406.pub2.

Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women

M Fader  1 , A M Cottenden, K Getliffe
Affiliations

Absorbent products for light urinary incontinence in women

M Fader et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Incontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine leakage and protect their clothes. It can be difficult to define light urinary incontinence because urine volumes, flow and frequency rates may vary substantially whilst still being considered 'light'. Light incontinence may encompass occasional (monthly) leaks of very small amounts (e.g. 1 g to 2 g) up to frequent leaks (several times per day) of larger amounts (e.g. 20 g to 50 g). A practical definition is urine loss that can be contained within a small absorbent pad (typically 50 g to 500 g; ISO 1996).

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of different types of absorbent product designs for women with light urinary incontinence.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (3 May 2006) and the reference lists of relevant articles were perused.

Selection criteria: TYPES OF STUDIES: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of absorbent products for women with light urinary incontinence.

Types of participants: Women with light urinary incontinence. TYPES OF INTERVENTION: Absorbent products (disposable insert pads, menstrual pads, washable pants with integral pad, washable insert pads) suitable for light incontinence.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trial.

Main results: One study with 85 participants met the selection criteria. This trial studied all the absorbent product designs included in this review. Data were presented on all included outcomes. For preventing leakage, for preference and for overall acceptability disposable insert pads are better than disposable menstrual pads which are better than washable pants with integral pad which are better than washable insert pads. There is no strong evidence that either disposables or washables are better for skin health. The disposable insert is the most expensive design and there is no dominant design for cost-effectiveness. There is evidence that some women will prefer alternative designs which are all cheaper than disposable inserts.

Authors' conclusions: Although data were available from only one eligible trial the data were sufficiently robust to make recommendations for practice. Disposable insert pads are typically more effective than the other designs considered. However, because they are the most expensive, providing choice of designs (or combinations of designs for different circumstances) is likely to be cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this review are also the authors of the single included trial

Figures

1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effec.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Disposable insert pads versus disposable menstrual pads, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effe.
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2 Disposable insert pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
3.9
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
3.10
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
3.11
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effec.
3.12
3.12. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
3.13
3.13. Analysis
Comparison 3 Disposable insert pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
4.8
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
4.9
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
4.10
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
4.11
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effect.
4.12
4.12. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
4.13
4.13. Analysis
Comparison 4 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable pants with integral pad, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good versus okay or poor.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
5.9
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
5.10
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
5.11
5.11. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effect.
5.12
5.12. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
5.13
5.13. Analysis
Comparison 5 Disposable menstrual pads versus washable insert pads, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 1 Number of products scored as leaking: none versus a little or a lot.
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 2 Prevention of leakage: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.3
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 3 Comfort when dry: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.4
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 4 Comfort when wet: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.5
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 5 Discreetness (invisibility under clothes): number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.6
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 6 Staying in place: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.7
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 7 Prevention of smell: number rating design good or okay versus poor.
6.8
6.8. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 8 Mean number of incontinence laundry items per 24 hours.
6.9
6.9. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 9 Mean number of products used per 24 hours.
6.10
6.10. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 10 Skin health problems: number recording none versus a little or a lot.
6.11
6.11. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 11 Effect on everyday activities: number rating design as good or no effect versus bad effect.
6.12
6.12. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 12 Overall acceptability: number rating design acceptable versus unacceptable.
6.13
6.13. Analysis
Comparison 6 Washable pants versus washable insert pads, Outcome 13 Preference: number preferring design.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Fader 2008 {published data only}
    1. Fader M, Cottenden A, Getliffe K, Gage H, Clarke‐O'Neill S, Jamieson K, et al. Absorbent products for urinary/faecal incontinence: a comparative evaluation of key product categories. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2008; Vol. 12, issue 29:1‐208. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Baker 1996 {published data only}
    1. Baker J, Norton P. Evaluation of absorbent products for women with mild to moderate urinary incontinence. Applied Nursing Research 1996;9(1):29‐33. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Clarke‐O'Neill 2002 {published data only}
    1. Clarke‐O'Neill S, Pettersson L, Fader M, Dean G, Brooks R, Cottenden A. A multicentre comparative evaluation: washable pants with an integral pad for light incontinence. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2002;11:79‐89. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Continence Product Evaluation Network. Reusable pants with integral pad for light incontinence. July. London: Medical Devices Agency, Department of Health, HMSO, 2001.
Clarke‐O'Neill 2004 {published data only}
    1. Clark‐O'Neil S, Petterson L, Fader M, Cottenden A, Brooks R. A mulitcenter comparative evaluation: disposable pads for women with light incontinence. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing 2004;31(1):32‐42. - PubMed
    1. Clarke‐O'Neill S, Pettersson L, Fader M. An evaluation of disposable pads for women with light incontinence. Nursing Times 2003;99(19):69‐72. [INCONTrefID26975] - PubMed
    1. Continence Product Evaluation Network. Disposable pads for light incontinence. London: Medical Devices Agency, Department of Health, HMSO, March 2002.
Cottenden 1997 {published data only}
    1. Cottenden AM, Dean GE, Brook RJ. Predicting the leakage performance of small disposable bodyworn disposable incontinence pads using laboratory tests. Medical Engineering & Physics 1997;19(6):556‐71. - PubMed
Cottenden 2006 {published data only}
    1. Cottenden AM, Rothwell JG, Leander H, Landeryoua MA, Fader MJ, Pettersson L, et al. A critical investigation of ISO 11948‐2 and ISO 11948‐1 for predicting the leakage performance of small disposable incontinence pads for lightly incontinent women. Medical Engineering & Physics 2006;28(1):42‐8. - PubMed
McClish 1999 {published data only}
    1. McClish DK, Wyman JF, Sale PG, Camp J, Earle B. Use and costs of incontinence pads in female study volunteers. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 1999;26(4):207‐8, 210‐3. - PubMed
Sabatier 1997 {published data only}
    1. Sabatier MC, Chaix L, Ambrosh B, Rizzi F. Palliative care of urinary incontinence [Les soins palliatifs de l'incontinence urinaire]. Revue de l'Infirmiere 1997;29:53‐60. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Thornburn 1997 {published data only}
    1. Thornburn P, Fader M, Dean G, Brooks R, Cottenden A. Improving the performance of small incontinence pads: a study of "wet comfort". Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 1997;24(4):219‐25. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed

Additional references

Alhasso 2005
    1. Alhasso AA, Glazener CMA, Pickard R, N'Dow JMO. Adrenergic drugs for urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001842.pub2; CD001842] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Berghmans 2004
    1. Berghmans B, Bo K, Hendriks E, Bie R, Kampen M. Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001202.pub2; CD001202] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Continence 2000
    1. Continence Foundation. Making the case for an integrated continence service. Continence Foundation 2000.
Continence Directory
    1. The Continence Foundation. Continence Product Directory http://www.continence‐foundation.org.uk/directory/index.php. London: The Continence Foundation, [accessed 21 February 2007].
Dumoulin 2006
    1. Dumoulin C, Hay‐Smith J. Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005654; CD005654] - DOI - PubMed
Environment Agency
    1. Aumonier S, Collins M. Life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable nappies in the UK. Science Report P1‐481/SR. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2005.
Eustice 2000
    1. Eustice S, Roe B, Paterson J. Prompted voiding for the management of urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002113; CD002113] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fader 2008
    1. Fader M, Cottenden AM, Getliffe K. Absorbent products for moderate‐heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007408; CD007408] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Getliffe 2007
    1. Getliffe KA, Fader M, Cottenden A, Jamieson K. Absorbent products for incontinence: 'treatment effects' and impact on quality of life. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2007 (submitted for publication). - PubMed
Hannestad 2000
    1. Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, et al. A community ‐based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCOT study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000;53(11):1150‐7. - PubMed
Hu 2004
    1. Hu T, Wagner TH, Bentkover JD, et al. Costs of urinary incontinence and overactive bladder in the United States: a comparative study. Urology. Phoenix, 2004; Vol. 63:461‐5. - PubMed
Hunskaar 2005
    1. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitan M, Nelson R, Sillen U. Epidemiology of urinary and faecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. WHO‐ICS International Consultation on Incontinence. 3rd Edition. Health Publications Ltd, 2005.
Hunter 2007
    1. Hunter KF, Moore KN, Glazener CMA. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub3; CD001843] - DOI - PubMed
ISO 1996
    1. ISO 11948‐1: Urine absorbing aids. Part 1: Whole‐product testing; November 1996.
Jamison 2004
    1. Jamison J, Maguire S, McCann J. Catheter policies for management of long term voiding problems in adults with neurogenic bladder disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004375.pub2; CD004375] - DOI - PubMed
Keegan 2007
    1. Keegan PE, Atiemo K, Cody JD, McClinton S, Pickard R. Periurethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003881.pub2; CD003881] - DOI - PubMed
Lapitan 2009
    1. Lapitan MCM, Cody JD, Grant A. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002912.pub3; CD002912] - DOI
Moore 2007
    1. Moore KN, Fader M, Getliffe K. Long‐term bladder management by intermittent catheterisation in adults and children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006008.pub2; CD006008] - DOI - PubMed
Mulrow 1997
    1. Mulrow CD, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook [updated September 1997]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software, 1994, issue 4.
Nabi 2006
    1. Nabi G, Cody JD, Ellis G, Hay‐Smith J, Herbison GP. Anticholinergic drugs versus placebo for overactive bladder syndrome in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003781.pub2; CD003781] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ostaszkiewicz 2004a
    1. Ostaszkiewicz J, Chestney T, Roe B. Habit retraining for the management of urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002801.pub2; CD002801] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ostaszkiewicz 2004b
    1. Ostaszkiewicz J, Johnston L, Roe B. Timed voiding for the management of urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002802.pub2; CD002802] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Roe 1996
    1. Roe B, Wilson K, Doll H, Brooks P. An evaluation of health interventions by primary health care teams and continence advisory services on potential outcomes related to incontinence. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1996.
Thomas 2008
    1. Thomas LH, Cross S, Barrett J, French B, Leathley M, Sutton CJ, et al. Treatment of urinary incontinence after stroke in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004462.pub3; CD004462] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Turnberg 1995
    1. Turnberg L, Brocklehurst J, Fowler C, Borzyskowski M, Cardozo L, Chellingsworth M, et al. Incontinence Causes, Management and Provision of Services. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1995.
Wallace 2004
    1. Wallace SA, Roe B, Williams K, Palmer M. Bladder training for urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001308.pub2; CD001308] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wilson 2001
    1. Wilson L, Brown JS, Shin GP, et al. Annual direct cost of urinary incontinence. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2001;98:398‐406. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Brazzelli 2002
    1. Brazzelli M, Shirran E, Vale L. Absorbent products for containing urinary and/or fecal incontinence in adults. Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing 2002;29:45‐54. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed

Publication types