SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Non-invasive brain stimulation as a promising therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms: systematic review.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
purposeLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are prevalent in neurological conditions and can significantly reduce quality of life. Although various treatments are available, many patients remain unresponsive or face side effects. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), modulates cortical excitability and may modulate the brain-bladder network that controls the micturition cycle. We performed a systematic review to assess the clinical effectiveness, underlying mechanisms, treatment protocols, and safety of NIBS for LUTS with the available evidence predominantly derived from neurogenic populations.
methodsA systematic review without meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched through December 31, 2025. We included prospective and randomized clinical studies in English that assessed NIBS for adult LUTS. Data extracted included population details, stimulation types and protocols, clinical and urodynamic results, and any adverse events.
resultsAmong 823 records identified, 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. NIBS enhanced objective urodynamic measures. For storage dysfunction, detrusor pressure decreased by 11.6 cmH
conclusionNIBS appears to be a safe and promising therapeutic option for neurogenic LUTS, although the available evidence remains heterogeneous. Larger randomized trials are needed to determine optimal stimulation targets, treatment duration, and the role of NIBS within the therapeutic algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667355What 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.