Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Enuresis: comparison of two treatments
Lynch NT, Grunert BK, Vasudevan SV, Severson RA
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1984 Feb;65(2):98-100
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Despite long-standing claims that the conditioning method of treating enuresis is based on the classic conditioning paradigm, research explicitly investigating this claim has been limited. This study compares two conditioning methods of treating enuresis, both using the bell and pad, one in a classic conditioning paradigm and the other in an operant paradigm with an unconditioned stimulus delay of 3 minutes together with an operant reinforcement for wet or dry behavior. Sixty children were randomly assigned to one of the 2 treatment groups or a control group. Using Dunn's procedure, a planned comparison showed the control group and delay group did not differ significantly, but both differed significantly from the classic conditioning group (p < 0.05). Fifty percent of the classic conditioning group reached criterion of 14 consecutive dry nights while 17% of the delay group reached criterion. None of the control group reached criterion. Results suggest that the operant procedures are a much weaker form of treatment than the bell and pad. This study indicates that enuresis in children can be successfully managed with a short duration outpatient program.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help