SynthesisScientific reports2024
Comparison of nonimplantable electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrical stimulation for quality of life in women with urinary incontinence.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of various electrical stimulation methods in alleviating symptoms and enhancing the quality of life for women with urinary incontinence. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that meet following criteria were included, urinary continence in women, using various electric stimulation treatments and evaluated outcomes related to symptoms, quality of life. Thirty RCTs were subjected to risk of bias assessment, certainty of evidence, and network meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with continuous variables expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Percutaneous tibial stimulation (SMD - 1.86, 95% CI - 2.77 to - 0.96) and intravaginal stimulation (SMD - 0.97, 95% CI - 1.55 to - 0.38) significantly reduced symptom severity. Additionally, percutaneous tibial, intravaginal, transcutaneous tibial, and trans-sacral stimulations improved quality of life. Percutaneous tibial stimulation was the most effective, followed by intravaginal stimulation. Despite moderate to low confidence in the evidence, large-scale RCTs are needed to evaluate long-term benefits of these treatment.
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.