PMC2914312

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

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

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%

At 3 months, significantly more women in the behavioral therapy group had no bothersome stress incontinence symptoms compared to the pessary group (49% vs 33%, p=0.006), with higher treatment satisfac

Effect: improvement; 49% vs 33%