Stress incontinence

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

The reduction in urinary incontinence from the weight-loss intervention was primarily attributable to stress incontinence, with the intervention group achieving a 57.6% decrease compared to 32.7% in c

Effect: improvement; 57.6% decrease vs 32.7% decrease

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group

Combination therapy (pessary + behavioral) was not superior to single-modality therapy because, although it was better than pessary alone on PGI-I (53% vs 40%, p=0.02) and PFDI (44% vs 33%, p=0.05), i

Effect: null; 53% PGI-I, 44% PFDI for combined group