What do systematic reviews say?

Electrical stimulation vs magnetic stimulation alone

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

It is very uncertain whether electrical stimulation changes participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (very low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.62 [0.51, 5.12]
  1 study · 52 participants
  Very low

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.06 [0.6, 1.85]
  1 study · 51 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation vs No active treatment (control)

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation vs laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation vs Placebo / sham solution

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence compared with placebo or sham treatment (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.03 [0.28, 89.88]
  2 studies · 242 participants
  Low

Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES twice a week

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES three times a week

It is very uncertain whether electrical stimulation (ES) once a week changes participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence ( compared with ES three times a week (very low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.8 [0.29, 2.21]
  1 study · 22 participants
  Very low

Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) vs motor threshold ES

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy vs behavioural therapy alone

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

PFMT added to electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) may leads to higher participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence compared with PFMT alone (low certainty).

• Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.82 [1.44, 5.52]
  1 study · 51 participants
  Low