ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
Peroneal electric transcutaneous neuromodulation versus solifenacin in the treatment of the overactive bladder wet.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Peroneal electrical Transcutaneous NeuroModulation (peroneal eTNM®) is a non-invasive treatment for overactive bladder (OAB). In the previous randomized study in female patients with OAB, both dry and wet, peroneal eTNM® demonstrated significantly better safety and comparable efficacy to solifenacin. This subgroup analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of peroneal eTNM® versus solifenacin in OAB wet population. Material and methods: In the primary study, eligible subjects were randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive either 12 weeks of daily peroneal eTNM® for 30 minutes or solifenacin 5 mg daily. This subgroup analysis included participants who presented with at least one incontinence episode at baseline and completed the study according to protocol. The primary endpoint was safety, secondary endpoint was proportion of continent subjects after treatment. Additional efficacy assessments included change in bladder diary variables, OAB V8 score, and quality of life (QoL). Results: In the peroneal eTNM® group (n = 26), three treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were recorded, while nine TRAEs occured in the solifenacin group (n = 16). The proportion of patients who achieved continence after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment was 50%, 62%, and 65% in the peroneal eTNM® and 56%, 50%, and 56% in the solifenacin group, respectively. Both treatments led to significant and similar improvements in all bladder diary variables, OAB V8 score, and QoL. Conclusions: The results of this secondary analysis confirm that peroneal eTNM® has significantly better safety profile and comparable efficacy versus solifenacin in the subgroup of incontinent OAB patients.
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.