The review included 11 trials (1,028 men). Four trials reported some study blinding. Allocation concealment was adequate in two trials. Intention-to-treat analysis was used in six trials. Approximately four per cent of men withdrew prior to the end of the trial. One trial had significantly different mean ages between the intervention and control groups, indicating that randomisation was not effective.
Pelvic floor muscle training with no biofeedback versus no training: Pelvic floor muscle training significantly reduced the time to recover continence (one trial): 19 per cent versus 8 per cent at one month (p=0.006); 74 per cent versus 30 per cent at three months (p<0.001); and 96 per cent versus 65 per cent at six months (p<0.001).
Bio-feedback enhanced pelvic floor muscle training versus no training or usual care: Bio-feedback enhanced pelvic floor muscle training was associated with higher rates of continence at one to two months, 57 per cent versus 37 per cent (relative benefit increase 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.34; four trials), but this effect was not significant at three to four months after radical prostatectomy, 87 per cent versus 69 per cent (relative benefit increase 1.19 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.72; five trials).
Bio-feedback enhanced pelvic floor muscle training versus written/verbal pelvic floor muscle training instruction (three trials): No studies reported a significant difference between treatments for any outcome at any of the evaluated times.
Pelvic floor muscle training compared with electrical stimulation with pelvic floor muscle training with a physiotherapist or verbal and written instruction: One trial found no difference in leakage between the two groups.
Electrical stimulation and extracorporeal magnetic innervation compared with pelvic floor muscle training: One trial found significantly reduced leakage within the first two months, but no differences at three and six months.