A critical appraisal of "Vaginal cone for postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence; randomized, controlled trial"

This term paper attempts to answer a clinical question involving vaginal cones and pelvic floor muscle testing (PFMT). More specifically, which of these would be most impactful on stress urinary incontinence and should be implemented in a therapy setting. The methods presented in the study are reproduceable and are performed in a way that reduces the risk of skewing data. Neither the evaluator nor the patients were blinded, creating a bias issue. The results and discussion are thorough and correctly interpreted. Tables 2 and 3 present accurate information, however a better explanation regarding the intergroup p values being selectively included or excluded would have been beneficial for the readers' understanding. Despite these few shortcomings, this article is regarded as a reputable source of information. An important strength of the article is its numerous references to related studies about the outcome measures and similar tests with results. In the end, it was concluded that both vaginal cones and PFMT are equally efficient at decreasing SUI complications.