ReviewDigital health
The effectiveness of digital therapeutics for rehabilitation of urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Telerehabilitation in the management of urinary incontinence in women: a narrative review.BMC women's health · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of mobile apps for urinary incontinence in women: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of digital therapeutics for rehabilitation of urinary incontinence. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of digital therapeutics on urinary incontinence, reporting outcomes on urinary incontinence severity, adherence, the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I), quality of life, and pelvic floor muscle function. The literature was reviewed, and the risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis was then conducted for each outcome using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18.0. Results: A total of 18 studies were included, involving 2308 individuals with urinary incontinence. Meta-analysis showed significant difference in urinary incontinence severity (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.53 to -0.07, Conclusion: This review suggests that digital therapeutics-based interventions may be significantly more effective than controls in alleviating urinary incontinence severity, enhancing adherence and improving PGI-I. However, due to the evidence quality, confidence in these findings is low. Therefore, future research should generate more robust evidence to validate the effectiveness of digital therapeutics on rehabilitation of urinary incontinence.
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.