A Cochrane review included 23 studies with a total of 1 806 participants. Cones were better than control treatment (failure to cure incontinence RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; 4 trials, n=375). There was little evidence of difference for a subjective cure between cones and PFMT (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13), or between cones and electrostimulation (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.87), but the confidence intervals were wide.Seven of the trials recruited women with symptoms of incontinence, while the others required women with urodynamic stress incontinence, apart from one where the inclusion criteria were uncertain.
Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, high loss to follow-up and, selective outcome reporting bias in over half of the studies).