What is biofeedback?
Biofeedback takes information about something happening in the body and presents it in a way that you can see or hear and understand. Getting on a scale to check your weight or having your blood pressure taken are very simple examples of biofeedback, which can be used to measure any body response such as heart rate or muscle contraction and relaxation.
In biofeedback, the measurement can be displayed on a computer screen or heard as a tone and used to learn about a subtle body function.
How is biofeedback used to treat incontinence and bladder problems?
Biofeedback has been proven effective in the treatment of urinary incontinence in numerous research studies. It can be used to help women learn to control and strengthen the pelvic floor muscles. The pelvic floor muscles (PFM) are a group of muscles that play an important role in bladder control. Weakness or dysfunction of the pelvic floor muscles can lead to problems with both bladder and rectal support and control.
Because you cannot see the pelvic floor muscles, you may have found it difficult to locate them. Perhaps you are uncertain if you are doing the pelvic muscle exercises correctly. This is where biofeedback can help.
Biofeedback therapy uses computer graphs and audible tones to show you the muscles you are exercising. It also allows the therapist to measure your muscle strength and individualize your exercise program. It does not do anything to your muscles. It is a teaching tool to help you learn to control and strengthen the pelvic floor area.
How is biofeedback done?
Two small sensors are placed with a sticky pad on either side of your anus, where the pelvic floor muscles are close to the skin. These can be placed under your loose clothing. Another set of sensors is placed across the abdomen. The sensors around the anus are connected to a computer screen and display a graph of your muscles as they are being exercised.
Since many women incorrectly use their stomach muscles when doing pelvic floor exercises, the sensors on the abdomen display a computerized graph to show you when you are using these muscles instead of those on the pelvic floor. The graphs also are helpful in measuring your growth in strength between biofeedback visits.
How long is each visit and how many will I need?
Biofeedback sessions are generally 30 minutes. The average number of sessions is four, but a few more or less may be needed to get the best results. Visits are scheduled every two to three weeks. Since biofeedback is a learning tool, it is important to practice pelvic floor exercises every day at home as well.
Introduction
This page displays your requested National Coverage Determination (NCD). The document is broken into multiple sections. You can use the Contents side panel to help navigate the various sections.
National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) are national policy granting, limiting or excluding Medicare coverage for a specific medical item or service.
Printing a Document to PDF
There are multiple ways to create a PDF of a document that you are currently viewing. You can use your browser’s Print function (Ctrl-P on a PC or Command-P on a Mac) to view a print preview and then select PDF as the output. Another option is to use the Download button at the top right of the document view pages (for certain document types).
More information
NCDs are developed and published by CMS and apply to all states. NCDs are made through an evidence-based process, with opportunities for public participation. Medicare coverage is limited to items and services that are considered “reasonable and necessary” for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury (and within the scope of a Medicare benefit category). An NCD sets forth the extent to which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures, or technologies on a national basis. Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) are required to follow NCDs.
If an NCD does not specifically exclude/limit an indication or circumstance, or if the item or service is not mentioned at all in an NCD or in a Medicare manual, an item or service may be covered at the discretion of the MAC based on a Local Coverage Determination (LCD). LCDs cannot contradict NCDs, but exist to clarify an NCD or address common coverage issues.
Prior to implementation of an NCD, CMS must first issue a Manual Transmittal, CMS ruling, or Federal Register Notice giving specific directions to claims-processing contractors. That issuance, which includes an effective date and implementation date, is the NCD. If appropriate, the Agency must also change billing and claims processing systems and issue related instructions to allow for payment. The NCD will be published in the Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual. An NCD becomes effective as of the date of the decision memorandum.
What is Biofeedback?
Biofeedback is a technique which is designed to help strengthen your urethral and anal sphincter muscles and pelvic floor muscles and help you to gain control over your bladder.
Biofeedback can help you learn which muscles to use, when to use them and how hard to contract them to prevent leakage.
How does biofeedback work?
There are several types of biofeedback but one is where a probe is inserted into the vagina (for women) or back passage (for men). The pressure exerted onto the probe when you squeeze your muscles, as if you were trying to avoid passing water, will be displayed on a computer screen.
Your physiotherapist or specialist nurse will instruct you how and when you have to squeeze your muscles to provide effective control over your bladder. You will practice using the screen as a guide first and then the screen will be hidden from view so that you have to rely on yourself.
Over time, you should gain more co-ordination and control over your sphincter and pelvic floor muscles. The strength of these muscles will also be improved as you are exercising them during your biofeedback programme.
Another form of biofeedback is the use of real-time ultrasound scanning. A probe is placed on your perineum and a picture of your pelvic organs is seen on a screen.
As you squeeze your pelvic floor muscles you are able to see what happens around your bladder and bowel. Your physiotherapist or specialist nurse will be able to correct how you squeeze your muscles once they have seen them working on the screen. Unfortunately this type of biofeedback is only available in specialist centres at the moment.
Conclusions At 24 months no evidence was found of any important difference in severity of urinary incontinence between PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and PFMT alone groups. Routine use of electromyographic biofeedback with PFMT should not be recommended. Other ways of maximising the effects of PFMT should be investigated.
Results Mean ICIQ-UI SF scores at 24 months were 8.2 (SD 5.1, n=225) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 8.5 (SD 4.9, n=235) in the PFMT group (mean difference −0.09, 95% confidence interval −0.92 to 0.75, P=0.84). Biofeedback PFMT had similar costs (mean difference £121 ($154; €133), −£409 to £651, P=0.64) and quality adjusted life years (−0.04, −0.12 to 0.04, P=0.28) to PFMT. 48 participants reported an adverse event: for 23 this was related or possibly related to the interventions.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was self-reported severity of urinary incontinence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF), range 0 to 21, higher scores indicating greater severity) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were cure or improvement, other pelvic floor symptoms, condition specific quality of life, women’s perception of improvement, pelvic floor muscle function, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment, PFMT self-efficacy, adherence, intervention costs, and quality adjusted life years.
Interventions Participants in both groups were offered six appointments with a continence therapist over 16 weeks. Participants in the biofeedback PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme, incorporating electromyographic biofeedback during clinic appointments and at home. The PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme. PFMT programmes were progressed over the appointments.
Participants 600 women aged 18 and older, newly presenting with stress or mixed urinary incontinence between February 2014 and July 2016: 300 were randomised to PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and 300 to PFMT alone.
Objective To assess the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone for stress or mixed urinary incontinence in women.
A Cochrane review synthesised the evidence for the benefit of PFMT with device mediated biofeedback over PFMT alone and although it seemed biofeedback might be more effective than PFMT alone, many comparisons were confounded. 5 Alternative plausible explanations were that participants receiving biofeedback had longer treatment times, more therapist contact, and different PFMT programmes. It was therefore unclear whether biofeedback provided additional benefit over PFMT alone. In this trial (OPAL, Optimal PFMT for Adherence Long term), we assessed whether PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback in the clinic and at home would be more effective than PFMT alone for reducing the severity of incontinence in women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence.
Adjuncts commonly used clinically to increase the effects of PFMT include electromyographic biofeedback, weighted vaginal cones, and electrical stimulation. Electromyographic biofeedback uses a vaginal probe to capture the electrical activity of the pelvic floor muscles, which is displayed on a screen. Used in tandem with PFMT, electromyographic biofeedback aims to facilitate teaching of the correct contraction technique and home exercise programme. Additionally, biofeedback allows women to visualise the activity of their pelvic floor muscles while exercising, potentially motivating them and enhancing adherence to the prescribed exercises.
Urinary incontinence, defined as involuntary urine leakage, 1 is a distressing, socially restricting condition that affects about one in three women. Urinary incontinence is categorised into three subcategories: stress urinary incontinence, the most common type, concerns urine leakage associated with physical exertion, coughing, and sneezing; urgency urinary incontinence involves a sudden need to pass urine, which is preceded or accompanied by urine leakage; and mixed urinary incontinence involves both stress and urgency urinary incontinence. Regular and progressive pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) for three months is currently recommended in the United Kingdom for stress and mixed urinary incontinence 2 to improve pelvic floor muscle function and its role in the continence mechanism. 3 Cochrane review evidence shows effectiveness of PFMT for urinary incontinence. 4
A patient representative was a trial co-investigator, a member of the project management group, and involved from the grant writing stage through publication of the protocol to completion and the writing up of the results. In addition, she worked closely with the trial team on the best ways of communicating with participants during the recruitment and follow-up stages. An additional patient representative was an independent member of the trial steering committee. Involvement of these individuals provided the opportunity for patients to influence all aspects of the research, including the design and logistics of implementing the research. The trial was undertaken in response to a commissioned call from the funders, which was informed by a James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise, thus patients also informed the research question.
Statistical analyses were undertaken using Stata SE version 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). The trial was overseen by a trial steering committee and data monitoring and ethics committee.
A within trial economic analysis was undertaken to estimate quality adjusted life years using responses to the EQ-5D-3L, and healthcare use reported in participant questionnaires, valued using published sources, with costs and quality adjusted life years discounted at the recommended rate of 3.5%.
We assessed linearity and normality of error distribution assumptions through residual plots. When ordinal models were fitted, we examined the proportional odds assumption using a Brant test.
For analysis of secondary outcomes, we used appropriate generalised linear models (linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, binary logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes, and ordinal logistic regression for ordered categorical outcomes), adjusted for minimisation variables, therapist type, and baseline score if measured. We prespecified several subgroup analyses for the primary outcome measure, with a stricter 1% level of significance: incontinence type (stress or mixed urinary incontinence), age (<50 or ≥50), therapist (physiotherapist or other), and baseline urinary incontinence severity (ICIQ-UI SF score <13 (mild or moderate) or ≥13 (severe)). 7
In both groups we defined protocol fidelity (compliance) as being met if PFMT was initially taught with verbal feedback from vaginal palpation and home exercises prescribed during at least one appointment, along with instruction on device use in the biofeedback group. We investigated the influence of non-compliance using complier average causal effect models in two sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, assuming that a participant’s treatment was protocol compliant or non-compliant, when compliance status was indeterminable.
The potential effects of missing observations in the primary outcome were assessed in a multiple imputation model and a repeated measures model, both assuming that observations were missing at random. Additionally, we fitted pattern mixture models assuming observations were missing not at random, but were higher or lower than the imputed values by 2.5 points (the minimal clinically important difference) 21 for all missing observations, and for each trial group separately.
Participant characteristics at baseline were summarised with counts (percentages) for dichotomous and categorical variables and means (standard deviations) for continuous variables. We analysed primary and secondary outcomes by intention to treat, using a 5% level of significance. The mean difference between groups in ICIQ-UI SF at 24 months was estimated using a linear mixed model adjusted for minimisation factors, therapist type (physiotherapist or other), and baseline score, with recruiting centre as a random effect.
Analyses were prespecified ( www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/117103/#/ ). As no published long term data on our primary outcome measure were available, we based our sample size calculation on studies reporting baseline ICIQ-UI SF scores for women with stress and mixed urinary incontinence. 19 20 Assuming a higher standard deviation of 10 at 24 months to reflect the long follow-up, we estimated that 234 participants in each group would provide 90% power at a 5% level of significance (two sided) to detect a between group difference of 3 points in the ICIQ-UI SF score, which was considered meaningful (eg, change from leaking urine once a day to never). No minimal clinically important difference had been published for a similar population at the outset of the trial (only for older women, mean age 72 years) 10 ; however, subsequently an ICIQ-UI SF minimal clinically important difference of 2.5 points was reported in a study of younger women. 21 We aimed to recruit 300 participants in each group, allowing for 22% loss to follow-up.
We recorded all adverse and serious adverse events, with details of seriousness, relatedness to the interventions, and whether expected (as prespecified in the trial protocol).
Secondary outcomes were cure (never or none responses to ICIQ-UI SF frequency or quantity items) and improvement in urinary incontinence (reduction in ICIQ-UI SF score of ≥3 points), 10 the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, measuring participants’ perceptions of their urine leakage (1=very much better to 7=very much worse), 11 uptake of urinary incontinence treatment (surgical or non-surgical), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-female lower urinary tract symptoms (12 items, three subscales: filling (0-15), voiding (0-12), and incontinence (0-20), higher scores worse), 12 the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-lower urinary tract symptoms quality of life (19 items, total ranging from 19 to 76, higher scores worse), 13 the EuroQol-5 dimension-3 level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire (range −0.594 to 1) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (range 0 to 100, higher scores better), 14 the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score (POP-SS; seven items, total ranging from 0 to 28, higher scores worse), 15 an early non-validated version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-bowel short form (six items: difficulty emptying, urgency, leakage, frequency of defecation, stool consistency, and interference with everyday life, each scored individually), the Oxford classification for pelvic floor muscle strength (0=no contraction to 5=strong contraction), 16 the International Continence Society classification for pelvic floor muscle relaxation (absent, partial, complete) and contraction (absent, weak, normal, strong), 17 the Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercise Self-Efficacy scale (17 items, total ranging from 17 to 85, higher scores greater self-efficacy), 18 adherence to the home programme (PFMT with or without biofeedback as appropriate) recorded by the therapist at each appointment (programme followed, yes or no), and, if missing, ascertained from participant exercise diaries and biofeedback unit data, and adherence to PFMT longer term self-reported in follow-up questionnaires. To quantify urine leakage, participants were originally asked to complete and return a three day bladder diary along with their 24 month questionnaire: this was stopped because of poor response, with initially only a few participants returning diaries or questionnaires, which affected the completeness of the primary outcome data.
The primary outcome was severity of urinary incontinence (ICIQ-UI SF) 9 at 24 months. The ICIQ-UI SF score ranges from 0 to 21 and is the weighted sum of three items addressing urinary incontinence frequency (“how often do you leak urine?” 0=never to 5=all the time), leakage quantity (“how much urine do you usually leak?” 0=none to 6=a large amount), and interference with everyday life (0=not at all to 10=a great deal). Higher scores reflect greater severity.
For each participant, the therapist recorded age, body mass index, number of births and delivery type, and urinary incontinence type and severity (using two ICIQ-UI SF questions relating to frequency and volume of leakage). The women used a bladder diary to record baseline urine leakage over three days. At each appointment, therapists recorded the findings of clinical assessment, treatment plan, prescribed PFMT programme, and participant’s adherence. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. A clinician not involved in treatment delivery and masked to group allocation carried out a pelvic floor muscle assessment at six months.
Participants in both groups were offered six face-to-face appointments (weeks 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15; 60 minutes for the first appointment and 30 minutes for subsequent appointments) with a therapist (an experienced physiotherapist, nurse, or other continence clinician) who had received training in intervention delivery. The therapist assessed the pelvic floor muscles, taught the correct technique for exercise, prescribed an individualised PFMT programme to be followed at home (aiming for three sets of exercises daily, recorded in an exercise diary), and used behaviour change techniques 8 embedded in the protocols to encourage adherence. 6 Bladder and bowel management information and lifestyle advice were provided as necessary. For participants in the biofeedback and PFMT group, electromyographic biofeedback was integrated with PFMT during the appointments. In addition, participants in this group were given the same biofeedback device as used during appointments for their home use with a prescribed programme, along with information on operating, cleaning, and output interpretation. The devices stored usage information and the participants recorded the use of the biofeedback device in their exercise diaries. We selected the electromyographic biofeedback device most used in the UK national health service at the time of the trial, and all centres were provided with an adequate supply of this device. By standardising and protocolising the PFMT delivered in both groups we ensured that all participants had the same treatment other than the addition of the electromyographic biofeedback.
The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, carried out the web based randomisation, with participants assigned in a ratio of 1:1 to either PFMT with clinic and home electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone. Randomisation was minimised by urinary incontinence type (stress v mixed), recruiting centre, age (˂50 v ≥50 years), and severity of urinary incontinence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF) score of ˂13 v ≥13). 7 Group allocation was relayed to participants by letter and to the trial office and recruiting centre by email. Participants, therapists delivering the intervention, and research staff could not be masked to group allocation. However, clinicians performing the six month pelvic floor muscle assessment were masked.
Our multicentre, parallel group randomised controlled trial was conducted in 23 UK centres providing continence care, with participant recruitment between February 2014 and July 2016. 6 All the centres used electromyographic biofeedback to varying degrees before the trial. Women aged 18 years or older and newly presenting with clinically diagnosed stress or mixed urinary incontinence and urine leakage as the primary problem were potentially eligible for inclusion. We excluded participants who had urgency urinary incontinence alone, a prolapse greater than stage II on examination (>1cm below the hymen on straining), were unable to contract pelvic floor muscles on digital examination when requested, had received formal instruction on PFMT in the preceding year (this was originally three years but was changed on 1 June 2015), were pregnant or had given birth in the past six months (this was originally one year but was changed on 1 June 2015), were receiving treatment for pelvic cancer, had neurological disease, could not provide informed consent because of cognitive impairment, were allergic or sensitive to nickel (this was added on 1 June 2015), or were participating in other urinary incontinence research. We originally excluded women who were using antimuscarinic drugs but removed this criterion before the start of recruitment (4 February 2014) because this is a common treatment for women with mixed urinary incontinence. All participants gave verbal and written informed consent.
Results
Between 27 February 2014 and 8 July 2016, 687 women in 23 centres were invited to participate in the trial. Of these women, 600 were randomised: 300 in the PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback group and 300 in the PFMT along group (fig 1). Participant personal characteristics and pelvic floor symptoms were similar between the groups at trial entry (table 1).
Fig 1
Trial profile. Short=shortened version of questionnaire, including the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form, the EuroQol-5 dimension-3 level questionnaire, and questions about adherence to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and uptake of urinary incontinence (UI) treatment, offered at the reminder stage; Long=full version of questionnaire. PFM=pelvic floor muscles
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or to PFMT alone. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
View this table:
After randomisation, five participants in the biofeedback PFMT group and two in the PFMT group withdrew consent to their data being used, leaving 295 and 298 participants included in the analysis, respectively (fig 1).
The proportion of participants who responded at six months was 74.0% (n=444/600), at 12 months was 84.0% (n=504/600), and at 24 months was 78.0% (n=468/600). Overall, 53.5% (n=321/600) of women attended the six month blinded pelvic floor muscle assessment, and successful masking was recorded in 93.5% (n=300/321). A similar proportion of women responded in both groups (fig 1).
One hundred and ninety eight participants (67.1%) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 192 (64.4%) in the PFMT group attended four or more appointments. The mean number of appointments attended was similar between the groups; the total time spent in appointments was longer for the biofeedback PFMT group (table 2). The intervention in both groups was delivered mostly by physiotherapists (table 2).
Table 2
Appointment attendance in participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or to PFMT alone, and therapist type. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
View this table:
The primary outcome, ICIQ-UI SF score at 24 months, was not statistically significantly different between the groups (mean difference −0.09, 95% confidence interval −0.92 to 0.75, P=0.84), with similarly no differences at six and 12 months (table 3); the width of all confidence intervals was less than 2.5, indicating no clinically important differences between the groups.
Table 3
Summary of International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF) responses of participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or to PFMT alone, and differences between groups
View this table:
The results of the sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome to examine the effect of missing data (assuming missing at random) supported those of the primary intention-to-treat analyses (multiple imputation: mean difference −0.11, 95% confidence interval −0.95 to 0.74; repeated measures model: −0.08, −0.86 to 0.70). Similarly, sensitivity analyses assuming missing not at random and addressing non-compliance did not alter the conclusions (see supplementary file).
None of the prespecified subgroup analyses (type of urinary incontinence, age, baseline severity of urinary incontinence, therapist type) of the primary outcome revealed any statistically significant treatment by subgroup interactions (fig 2).
Fig 2
Summary of subgroup analyses of primary outcome (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF) response at 24 months). PFMT=pelvic floor muscle training
Based on responses to the ICIQ-UI SF, the number of women with cure at 24 months was not statistically significantly different between the biofeedback PFMT and PFMT groups (7.9% v 8.4%, odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.78, P=0.77) (table 4). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found in the percentage of women who improved (60.0% v 62.6%, 0.89, 0.61 to 1.32, P=0.57) (table 4). Participants’ perceptions of improvement, captured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement instrument, showed no statistically significant difference between the groups at 24 months: 41.0% and 38.1% reported that their symptoms were “very much better” or “much better” (1.12, 0.76 to 1.63, P=0.57) (table 4). Responses to the question “How often do you leak urine?” were similar between the groups at the 24 month follow-up, the most common response being “about once a week or less often” (30.3% biofeedback PFMT v 30.4% PFMT) (see supplementary file).
Table 4
Cure and improvement of urinary incontinence in participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or to PFMT alone
View this table:
Lower urinary tract symptoms were not statistically significantly different between groups at 24 months on any of the subscale scores of filling, voiding, or incontinence (table 5). Quality of life related to lower urinary tract symptoms was not significantly different between groups at 24 months, measured either by the overall International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-lower urinary tract symptoms quality of life score or by its separate scale for interference due to urinary symptoms (table 5).
Table 5
Lower urinary tract symptoms in participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or to PFMT alone
View this table:
Blinded assessment of pelvic floor muscles at six months showed that 8.5% (n=13) of women in the biofeedback PFMT group and 6.0% (n=10) in the PFMT group had the maximum contraction strength, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (1.28, 0.86 to 1.89, P=0.22) (table 6). Contraction endurance and number of repetitions to muscle fatigue were also similar between groups (table 6).
Table 6
Pelvic floor muscle assessment at baseline and six months (blinded) in participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
View this table:
Prolapse symptom severity (POP-SS score) was not statistically significantly different between the biofeedback PFMT (mean 4.5 (SD 5.0)) and PFMT (mean 4.9 (SD 5.0)) groups at 24 months (mean difference −0.6, 95% confidence interval −1.51 to 0.30, P=0.19). Bowel symptoms at 24 months were similar between groups (see supplementary file).
A statistically significant difference in overall score for PFMT self-efficacy favoured biofeedback PFMT: mean 63.1 (SD 11.6) biofeedback PFMT v 60.9 (SD 12.0) PFMT (mean difference 2.36, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 4.68, P=0.05).
Evidence suggested that the prescribed home programme was followed in at least one period between appointments in 78.3% (220/281) of participants in the biofeedback PFMT group and 81.1% (241/297) in the PFMT group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.16, P=0.17). At 24 months, the proportion of participants who reported exercising two or three times a week (as recommended for maintenance) was 49.1% (85/173) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 42.6% (80/188) in the PFMT group (1.20, 0.83 to 1.74, P=0.33, post hoc analysis).
Forty eight participants reported adverse events (34 biofeedback PFMT, 14 PFMT), of whom 23 (21 biofeedback PFMT, 2 PFMT) had an event related or possibly related to the trial interventions. All but four of these events (two in each group) were expected. Only one event was related to the interventions: a nickel allergy in a participant in the biofeedback PFMT group, who discontinued with the intervention. In addition, eight serious adverse events were reported (6 biofeedback PFMT, 2 PFMT). All were unrelated to the interventions and unexpected.
Similar proportions of women reported receiving urinary incontinence surgery at each follow-up. Uptake of further non-surgical urinary incontinence care or treatment was also comparable between groups (table 7).
Table 7
Uptake of further treatment for urinary incontinence in participants assigned to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone
View this table:
In the biofeedback PFMT group, the mean cost for each participant, taking into account the intervention cost and continence related healthcare (hospital, primary care, prescribed drugs) during 24 months of follow-up was £1261 ($1605; €1374) (SD £1333) compared with £1118 (SD £1294) for the PFMT group (mean difference £121, 95% confidence interval −£409 to £651, P=0.64). The mean quality adjusted life years for biofeedback PFMT was 1.57 (SD 0.49) and for PFMT was 1.62 (SD 0.46) (−0.04, −0.12 to 0.04, P=0.28). On average, biofeedback PFMT cost more than PFMT, and quality adjusted life years were lower, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant.
