ReviewSurgical neurology international2023
The role of interferential current electrical stimulation in pediatric urology: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, interferential current (IFC) electrical stimulation has been studied as a novel treatment for various lower urinary tract dysfunctions in children. As the findings of multiple studies may vary, we aimed to evaluate the current view on IFC in pediatric urology problems based on the findings of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: We performed a systematic search in the Embase, Medline, and SCOPUS databases in accordance with the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible studies comprised studies evaluating IFC for lower urinary tract problems in children. The studies' quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool 2. Results: A total of 125 articles were initially obtained, among which 40 articles were duplicates. There were six eligible RCTs with an overall low RoB. All subjects underwent 10-18 sessions of treatment. The outcomes measured consisted of the alleviation of symptoms and urodynamic parameters. The trials reported that 61-90% of patients responded positively to the treatment. Both IFC and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation generated improvements in the subjects. However, overall the IFC group showed better immediate and short-term improvement. Conclusion: IFC is a promising therapy for bladder dysfunction and enuresis in children. More comparative RCTs are required in the future to quantitatively determine the superiority of IFC to other alternatives. The safety aspects of the treatment should also be studied further before it can be used in a clinical setting as the standard and protocol for children are still unclear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.