IntroductionStress urinary incontinence is a major health problem, and several clinical guidelines have been formulated and released regarding this in different countries. However, the recommendations in these guidelines formulated by different organisations and countries are inconsistent. This review aims to conduct a critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of stress urinary incontinence.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a comprehensive search in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, three Chinese databases and six guideline databases. The databases will be searched from January 2003, and the comprehensive search will be done again to include all the qualified guidelines before making conclusions. The quality of clinical practice guidelines will be assessed by three appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument, and this will be scored. The recommendation available in the guidance will also be summarised in different domains including the diagnosis standard, recommended examination and questionnaire for assessment, conservative treatment and surgical treatment.Ethics and disseminationThis review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The results will help inform the health practitioners about the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018115743.

Introduction and hypothesis Urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in antenatal and postnatal women. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the first-line treatment for UI. Group-based PFMT provides a way for professionals to deliver this intervention to more women who need to prevent and/or treat UI. This review aims to (1) assess the effectiveness of group-based PFMT in preventing and treating UI in antenatal and postnatal women and (2) explore the characteristics of group-based intervention and factors which had an impact on the success of group-based PFMT. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database, CINAHL, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database and Wanfang Database. The overall quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). RCTs which included pregnant and/or postnatal women with or without UI investigating the effectiveness of group-based PFMT were included. Results Five RCTs were included in this review. The overall quality of the results of the included studies was low. Delivering group-based PFMT during pregnancy significantly reduced the prevalence of UI in both the pregnant period [risk ratio (RR) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.80, P < 0.00001] and the postnatal period [RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84, P = 0.0008]. Only one RCT delivered group-based PFMT during the postnatal period. Conclusion Evidence of weak quality supports the effectiveness of undertaking group-based PFMT in pregnancy to prevent UI during pregnancy and the postnatal period. No evidence showed the effectiveness of undertaking group-based PFMT in the postnatal period.

No abstract

No abstract