↓ Skip to main content

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010098.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Stewart, Luis F Gameiro, Regina El Dib, Monica O Gameiro, Anil Kapoor, Joao L Amaro

Abstract

Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency. To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 10 December 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded. Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride.Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback.Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121).Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51).There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life.There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence).Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES.There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 228 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 18%
Unspecified 38 16%
Student > Bachelor 38 16%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 9%
Other 68 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 38%
Unspecified 47 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 18%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 40 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,902,141
of 12,739,396 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,645
of 10,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,854
of 371,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,739,396 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.