Robinson et al (2003) evaluated the safety and efficacy of an urethral device (NEAT) and compare dit with the Reliance Insert. The ease of use of both devices was then evaluated. A total of 24 women with mixed or SUI were enrolled in the study. Study subjects were blinded and randomly assigned to a device group. Device efficacy was assessed by pad weighing at 0 and 4 months. Success was defined as a 50 % or greater reduction in urine loss using the formula 100 [(pad weight without device - pad weight with device)/pad weight with device]. Safety was evaluated using urinalysis and urine cultures. Ease of use assessment scales were also completed. Eleven patients were randomized to the Reliance Insert and 13 to the NEAT device. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in age, height, weight, duration of incontinence, pad weight, leakage score, parity or QoL score. Based on the pad weight success formula, there was no significant difference in device success between the 2 groups at 4 months. Women who were post-menopausal had a trend towards a higher level of success in reduction of their pad weight. Previous treatment, diagnosis and hormone replacement therapy all had no relationship to device success. Leakage score data showed that subjects had a significant decrease in urine leakage when using either device. There was no statistically significant difference in ease of use between the 2 devices. Adverse symptoms most commonly noted were awareness of the device (62.5 %), urgency (29.2 %), and urethral discomfort or pain (20.8 %). One urinary tract infection (UTI) was observed. The most common finding on urinalysis was trace hematuria (15.8 %). The authors concluded that the NEAT device appears to be at least as effective and safe as the Reliance Insert. Both devices are effective at decreasing urine leakage in patients with SUI or mixed UI. The risk of UTI is low, but these devices may cause trace hematuria.