Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2026
Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Urgency Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisMagnetic stimulation is a noninvasive, painless neuromodulatory therapy that has emerged as a promising conservative treatment for urinary incontinence. This study aimed to evaluate its clinical effectiveness and safety in women with urgency urinary incontinence (UUI).
methodsIn this single-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial, 70 women with UUI were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to active MS or sham treatment. Participants received 12 sessions of magnetic stimulation over 6 weeks. The active group received individually adjusted stimulation intensity, while the sham group received minimal stimulation to preserve blinding. The primary outcome was change in symptom severity measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF). Secondary outcomes included bladder diary parameters (urinary frequency, urgency urinary incontinence episodes, nocturia), symptom-specific quality of life (UDI-6, IIQ-7), and patient-reported improvement (PGI-I). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months post-treatment.
resultsAt 6 months, 40 participants in the active group and 16 in the sham group completed follow-up. The active group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in ICIQ-UI SF scores (mean change -4.05 ± 3.23) compared to sham (-1.19 ± 1.72; p < 0.001). Significant improvements were also observed in urgency incontinence episodes, nocturia, and quality of life measures in the active group. No serious adverse events were reported, confirming the favourable safety profile of MS.
conclusionsThis study provides new controlled evidence supporting MS as an effective, noninvasive, and well-tolerated treatment for women with UUI. These findings contribute important data on mid-term efficacy but highlight the need for further high-quality RCTs with standardised protocols and longer-term follow-up.
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.