Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The addition of biofeedback to pelvic floor muscle training showed no evidence of a difference in urinary incontinence severity at 24 months.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Suzanne Hagen 1,*, Carol Bugge 2, Sarah G Dean 3, Andrew Elders 1, Jean Hay-Smith 4, Mary Kilonzo 5, Doreen McClurg 1, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah 5, Wael Agur 6, Federico Andreis 2, Joanne Booth 7, Maria Dimitrova 5, Nicola Gillespie 1, Cathryn Glazener 8, Aileen Grant 9, Karen L Guerrero 10, Lorna Henderson 11, Marija Kovandzic 2, Alison McDonald 11, John Norrie 12, Nicole Sergenson 1, Susan Stratton 1, Anne Taylor 2, Louise R Williams 1

1 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
2 Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
3 University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
4 Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
5 Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
6 NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Kilmarnock, UK
7 School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
8 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
9 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
10 Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
11 Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
12 Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document