SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Efficacy and safety of vaginal electrical stimulation as an alternative or adjunct treatment for overactive bladder syndrome in women: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vaginal electrical stimulation (VES) as an alternative or adjunct treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome in women.
methodsFive English-language databases and four Chinese-language databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies comparing VES (VES alone or VES plus other interventions) with other interventions (medicines, bladder training, or PFMT) were included. Voiding diary, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events were extracted from the included studies for comparison.
resultsSeven trials with 601 patients in total were reviewed. The results showed that when compared with other interventions, VES alone significantly improved urgency episodes (p = 0.0008) and voiding frequency (p = 0.01), but did not significantly reduce nocturia (p = 0.85), urinary incontinence episodes (p = 0.90) and number of pads (p = 0.87). When VES plus other interventions was compared with other interventions, the former significantly improved voiding frequency (p < 0.00001), nocturia (p < 0.00001), and number of pads (p = 0.03), but it did not significantly reduce urinary incontinence episodes (p = 0.24). Both VES alone (p < 0.00001) and VES plus other interventions (p = 0.003) showed significant benefit on QoL.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that VES alone decreased urgency episodes and QoL better than other therapies. Although VES alone reduced voiding frequency better and VES plus other therapies decreased nocturia, number of pads, urgency episodes, and QoL better than other therapies, the results should be interpreted with caution for clinical practice because some of the RCTs included were of low quality and because of the small number of studies included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.