Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768987›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

The added value of devices to pelvic floor muscle training in radical post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review with metanalysis.

Giardulli Benedetto, Battista Simone, Leuzzi Gaia, Job Mirko, Buccarella Ottavia, Testa Marco

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pelvic floor rehabilitation in cancer survivorship: an umbrella review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. The Experience of People With Urinary Incontinence Using Invasive Devices in Pelvic Floor Muscle Training: A Qualitative Study.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Giardulli BenedettoDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0079-0714
Battista SimoneDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7471-1951
Leuzzi GaiaDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Job MirkoDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Buccarella OttaviaDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Testa MarcoDepartment of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8643-7200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.

resultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a 'low' RoB, one had 'some concerns', while nine were at a 'high' RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.

conclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.

Indexed as

Pelvic FloorProstatectomyUrinary Incontinence, StressBiofeedback, PsychologyExercise TherapyHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37768987
PMCPMC10538711
OpenAlexW4387129751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.