Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2025
Comparison of Magnetic and Transcutaenous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Added to Bladder Training for Overactive Bladder: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05387824 (Comparison of the Efficacy of Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation and Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation in Women With Idiopathic Overactive Bladder), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of the Efficacy of Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation and Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation in Women With Idiopathic Overactive Bladder
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of magnetic stimulation (MStim) and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS), both combined with bladder training (BT), in women with idiopathic overactive bladder (iOAB).
methodsWomen with iOAB were randomized into three groups: group 1 received BT only; group 2 received MStim plus BT; and group 3 received TTNS plus BT. MStim and TTNS were administered twice weekly, 30 min per session, for a total of 12 sessions over 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the positive response rate, defined as ≥ 50% fewer incontinence episodes, measured via a 3-day bladder diary at 6 weeks. Seconder outcomes included incontinence severity (pad test), voiding frequency, incontinence episodes, nocturia, number of pads used, symptom severity (OAB-V8), QoL (IIQ-7).
resultsAccording to the sample size calculation, 66 women were included in the study, with 22 assigned to each group. The three groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. The positive response rate (primary outcome) was significantly higher in groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 at week 6 (66.7% and 90.5% vs. 35.0%, p = 0.001), with no significant difference between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.130). Both stimulation groups (each n = 21) demonstrated significant improvements in incontinence severity, incontinence episodes, number of pads used, symptom severity, QoL, and treatment satisfaction compared to the BT-only group (n = 20) (p < 0.0167). No significant differences were found between group 2 and group 3 for these parameters. Voiding frequency significantly improved in group 3 (med 11 to 6) compared to group 1 (med 11 to 8) and group 2 (med 12 to 8) (p < 0.0167).
conclusionsBoth MStim plus BT and TTNS plus BT are more effective than BT alone in women with iOAB. These two stimulation methods have similar clinical efficacy, with TTNS demonstrating greater effectiveness in reducing voiding frequency. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05387824.
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.