Observational studyScientific reports2025
Electrical pudendal nerve stimulation versus pelvic floor muscle training with transrectal electrical stimulation for post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: a cohort study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06130306 (Electrical Pudendal Nerve Stimulation Versus Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Plus Transanal Electrical Stimulation for Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Electrical Pudendal Nerve Stimulation Versus Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Plus Transanal Electrical Stimulation for Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physiotherapy for Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy: Current Evidence and Therapeutic Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Electrical pudendal nerve stimulation (EPNS) has been proposed as a clinic-based option for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), but comparative evidence is limited. We conducted a retrospective cohort study across three medical centers (2018-2022) comparing EPNS (24 sessions over eight weeks) with pelvic-floor muscle training plus transrectal electrical stimulation (PFMT + TES). Primary outcomes were changes from baseline to end of treatment in the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) score and 24-hr pad-test urine loss. The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7) score was assessed as a secondary outcome, and pad-free status was recorded at six months after treatment. In adjusted analyses using propensity-score overlap weighting of 389 men, EPNS was associated with larger improvements than PFMT + TES in ICIQ-UI SF (β - 4.34, 95% CI - 6.65 to - 2.02), 24-hr pad-test urine loss (β - 631.26 g, - 750.81 to - 511.70), and IIQ-7 (β - 2.86, - 5.14 to - 0.58). Unweighted within-group changes were directionally consistent. At the last follow-up, pad-free status was observed in 32.6% of men in the EPNS group versus 7.0% with PFMT + TES. These findings suggest that eight weeks of EPNS can reduce symptom burden and urine loss and yield patient-perceivable quality-of-life gains, although further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effects.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06130306 Registration Date 11/05/2023).
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.