Alarm interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (2):CD002911CD
Enuresis (bedwetting) is a socially disruptive and stressful condition which affects around 15 to 20% of five year olds, and up to 2% of young adults.
To assess the effects of alarm interventions on nocturnal enuresis in children, and to compare alarms with other interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group specialised trials register (searched 22 November 2004) and the reference lists of relevant articles.
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of alarm interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children were included, except those focused solely on daytime wetting. Comparison interventions included no treatment, simple and complex behavioural methods, desmopressin, tricyclics, and miscellaneous other methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the eligible trials, and extracted data.
Fifty five trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 3152 children of whom 2345 used an alarm. The quality of many trials was poor, and evidence for many comparisons was inadequate. Most alarms used audio methods. Compared to no treatment, about two thirds of children became dry during alarm use (RR for failure 0.38, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.45). Nearly half who persisted with alarm use remained dry after treatment finished, compared to almost none after no treatment (RR of failure or relapse 45/81 (55%) vs 80/81 (99%), RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.68). There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about different types of alarm, or about how alarms compare to other behavioural interventions. Relapse rates were lower when overlearning was added to alarm treatment (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.92) or if dry bed training was used as well (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.20). Penalties for wet beds appeared to be counter-productive. Alarms using electric shocks were unacceptable to children or their parents. Although desmopressin may have a more immediate effect, alarms appear more effective by the end of a course of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99) and there was limited evidence of greater long-term success (4/22 (18%) vs 16/24 (67%), RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.69). Evidence about the benefit of supplementing alarm treatment with desmopressin was conflicting. Alarms were better than tricyclics during treatment (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88) and afterwards (7/12 (58%) vs 12/12 (100%), RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.94).