PFMT added to electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): Cure: number of women with self‐reported continence
Electrical stimulation plus PFMT showed no clear difference in cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with PFMT (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Electrical stimulation plus PFMT vs PFMT Cure: number of women with self‐reported continence · women with stress urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation plus PFMT showed no clear difference in cure: number of women with self‐reported continence compared with PFMT (low certainty). Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.76 [0.38, 1.52] | 3 studies · 99 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.