These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Incontinence pads: recommending the best product-based wetback performance and price.
    Author: Erekson EA, Meyer SA, Melick C, McLennan MT.
    Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2008 Oct; 19(10):1411-4. PubMed ID: 18506382.
    Abstract:
    Incontinence pads are available in the USA without a prescription and are commonly the first treatment option a patient with incontinence uses. The goal of this study was to examine the difference in the performance and cost of commercially available incontinence pads with the intention of providing recommendations to women. Ten different urinary incontinence products were selected. A modified wetback test was used to test product performance. For the small volume leaks, the Walgreen's Extra pad generally performed worse on the wetback test than the three other pads tested (p = 0.001-0.012), but four tests were not statistically significant. At larger leak volumes, the Walgreen's underwear generally performed worse than other products (p < or = 0.001-0.046), with some exceptions. Brand name products generally performed better than generic products, but cost more. Undergarments and underwear do the worst job of keeping moisture inside the pad.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]