Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2018
Patients' perception and satisfaction with pulsed magnetic stimulation for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Technologies for Evaluation of Pelvic Floor Functionality: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of Possible Side Effects in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence with Magnetic Stimulation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- An Effective Meta-analysis of Magnetic Stimulation Therapy for Urinary Incontinence.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy Comparison between Kegel Exercises and Extracorporeal Magnetic Innervation in Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Trial
- Can Magnetic Stimulation Promote Pelvic Floor Muscle Contraction? Science or Speculation?International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of conservative therapies for female stress urinary incontinence: Advancements, efficacy, and future directions.Current urology · 2025Review
- Bipolar Radiofrequency and Non-Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Plus Calcium Hydroxyapatite in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy of optimized pelvic floor training of YUN combined with pelvic floor magnetic stimulation on female moderate stress urinary incontinence and sexual function: a retrospective cohort study.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Comparison of efficacy of extracorporeal magnetic innervation and Kegel exercises for stress urinary incontinence in adult women: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2021Article
- Urinary Incontinence in Women: Modern Methods of Physiotherapy as a Support for Surgical Treatment or Independent Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- The Effect of Magnetic Therapy on Postoperative Urinary Retention in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe evaluated patients' perception and satisfaction with nonsurgical pulsed magnetic stimulation (PMS) for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.
methodsWomen with SUI (n = 120) were randomized to either active or sham PMS for 8 weeks (twice/week). Patients answered seven questions on their perception and acceptability, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using two parameters: (i) the single-item question "Overall, please rate how satisfied you are with the treatment" and (ii) Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). All adverse events were documented.
resultsA total of 115 patients completed treatments (active: n = 57, sham: n = 58). There were no significant differences between groups in all parameters regarding perception and acceptability (p > 0.05). In terms of treatment satisfaction, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the active group (n = 47/57, 82.4%) were either mostly or completely satisfied compared with those in the sham group (n = 27/58, 46.6%) ((p = 0.001). Similarly, a statistically significantly higher percentage of patients in the active group (n = 39/57, 68.4%) felt much or very much better compared with patients in the sham group (n = 11/58, 19.0%) as measured using the PGI-I (p < 0.001). Three (5.3%) patients in the active group and five (8.6%) in the sham group experienced adverse events (p = 0.72). Regardless of treatment arms, 109 (94.8%) patients would not consider surgical options even if they required further treatment for their condition.
conclusionPMS was well accepted, well tolerated, and resulted in a high treatment satisfaction among women with SUI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28744557What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.