↓ Skip to main content

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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 devices for stress urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012390.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Stewart, Bary Berghmans, Kari Bø, Cathryn MA Glazener

Abstract

Several treatment options are available for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), drug therapy and surgery. Problems exist such as adherence to PFMT regimens, side effects linked to drug therapy and the risks associated with surgery. We have evaluated an alternative treatment, electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, which aims to improve pelvic floor muscle function to reduce involuntary urine loss. To assess the effects of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices, alone or in combination with other treatment, for managing stress urinary incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence in women. Among the outcomes examined were costs and cost-effectiveness. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearches of journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and undertook separate searches to identify studies examining economic data. We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for SUI in women. Eligible trials included adult women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). We excluded studies of women with urgency-predominant MUI, urgency urinary incontinence only, or incontinence associated with a neurologic condition. We would have included economic evaluations had they been conducted alongside eligible trials. 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 would have performed economic evaluations using the approach recommended by Cochrane Economic Methods. We identified 56 eligible trials (3781 randomised participants). Eighteen trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective cure, improvement of SUI or incontinence-specific quality of life (QoL). The risk of bias was generally unclear, as most trials provided little detail when reporting their methods. We assessed 25% of the included trials as being at high risk of bias for a variety of reasons, including industry funding and baseline differences between groups. We did not identify any economic evaluations.For subjective cure of SUI, we found moderate-quality evidence that ES is probably better than no active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.02). We found a similar result for cure or improvement of SUI (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.11), but the quality of evidence was lower. We are very uncertain if there is a difference between ES and sham treatment in terms of subjective cure because of the very low quality of evidence (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.38 to 12.73). For subjective cure or improvement, ES may be better than sham treatment (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.07). The effect estimate was 660/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 382/1000 with no active treatment (95% CI 538 to 805 women); and for sham treatment, 402/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 198/1000 with sham treatment (95% CI 202 to 805 women).Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be no difference in cure or improvement for ES versus PFMT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03), PFMT plus ES versus PFMT alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28) or ES versus vaginal cones (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21).Electrical stimulation probably improves incontinence-specific QoL compared to no treatment (moderate quality evidence) but there may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and PFMT (low quality evidence). It is uncertain whether adding electrical stimulation to PFMT makes any difference in terms of quality of life, compared with PFMT alone (very low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and vaginal cones in improving incontinence-specific QoL (low quality evidence). The impact of electrical stimulation on subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, compared with vaginal cones, PFMT plus vaginal cones, or drugs therapy, is uncertain (very low quality evidence).In terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, the available evidence comparing ES versus drug therapy or PFMT plus vaginal cones was very low quality and inconclusive. Similarly, comparisons of different types of ES to each other and of ES plus surgery to surgery are also inconclusive in terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL (very low-quality evidence).Adverse effects were rare: in total nine of the women treated with ES in the trials reported an adverse effect. We identified insufficient evidence to compare the risk of adverse effects in women treated with ES compared to any other treatment. We were unable to identify any economic data. The current evidence base indicated that electrical stimulation is probably more effective than no active or sham treatment, but it is not possible to say whether ES is similar to PFMT or other active treatments in effectiveness or not. Overall, the quality of the evidence was too low to provide reliable results. Without sufficiently powered trials measuring clinically important outcomes, such as subjective assessment of urinary incontinence, we cannot draw robust conclusions about the overall effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 27%
Student > Master 15 18%
Unspecified 14 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 26%
Unspecified 17 20%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 13 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#279,461
of 12,612,419 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#792
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,167
of 383,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,419 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 383,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.