ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
A rapid evidence assessment for extracorporeal magnetic stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in men.
Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExtracorporeal magnetic stimulation (EMS) is a non-invasive treatment for urinary incontinence (UI) in women, but its effectiveness in men is not well known. This review identifies and evaluates the evidence supporting EMS for treating UI in adult men.
methodsWe systematically searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PEDro databases up to November 2024. Studies included EMS alone or compared to other treatments in men with UI. A qualitative assessment of the evidence was carried out. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist for randomized and non-randomized studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
resultsOf 285 studies screened, nine met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 181 men treated with EMS, mostly post-prostatectomy. Four RCTs, with qualities ranging from fair to good, and small sample sizes (n=16-36), found EMS led to earlier continence compared to pelvic floor muscle therapy (PFMT) and was superior to sham treatment. One study reported significant improvements in urodynamic measures after EMS, and another showed a 48% reduction in 24-hour pad usage, sustained at 12.5 months. Several studies indicated that EMS accelerated symptom improvement compared to PFMT but had similar long-term outcomes. All studies using validated quality-of-life measures reported significant improvements after EMS.
conclusionsEvidence for EMS in treating male UI is limited but generally positive. EMS may promote faster continence recovery than PFMT, with similar long-term outcomes. Larger, high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice and recommendations for different subgroups.
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.