Incontinence pads: recommending the best product-based wetback performance and price

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 19; no. 10; pp. 1411 - 1414
• Main Authors: Erekson, Elisabeth A., Meyer, Sara A., Melick, Clifford, McLennan, Mary T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Springer-Verlag 01.10.2008; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Costs and Cost Analysis; Equipment Design; Female; Generic products; Gynecology; Humans; Incontinence Pads - economics; Incontinence Pads - standards; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Quality Control; Urinary incontinence; Urinary Incontinence - rehabilitation; Urology; Urinary incontinence; Absorbent pads; Incontinence products; Diapers
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0645-4

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  ≤ 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.