Cochrane · systematic review · CD010098
Electrical stimulation with non‐implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults
Stewart, F, Gameiro, LF, El Dib, R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
52
current version
GRADE rated
30
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 22 · 42.3%Very low 13 · 25%Low 13 · 25%Moderate 4 · 7.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyElectrical stimulation versus no active treatment
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment | RR 1.85 [1.34, 2.55] | 2 studies · 121 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life (higher score indicates better quality of life) Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 148 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation versus placebo or sham treatment
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs placebo or sham treatment | RR 2.26 [1.85, 2.77] | 10 studies · 677 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs placebo or sham treatment | RR 5.03 [0.28, 89.88] | 2 studies · 242 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs placebo or sham treatment | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 627 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs placebo or sham treatment | RR 1.24 [0.84, 1.83] | 3 studies · 450 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrical stimulation versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) | RR 1.6 [1.19, 2.14] | 3 studies · 195 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) | RR 1.62 [0.51, 5.12] | 1 study · 52 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 49 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback | RR 1.06 [0.6, 1.85] | 1 study · 51 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 51 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation versus magnetic stimulation
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs magnetic stimulation | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs magnetic stimulation | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs magnetic stimulation | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs magnetic stimulation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrical stimulation versus laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation vs laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs laseropuncture/electro‐acupuncture | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation versus drug therapy
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation vs drug therapy | RR 1.2 [1.04, 1.38] | 8 studies · 439 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation vs drug therapy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 336 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ‐ ES versus oxybutynin Electrical stimulation vs drug therapy | RR 0.11 [0.01, 0.84] | 2 studies · 79 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ‐ ES versus tolterodine Electrical stimulation vs drug therapy | RR 0.12 [0.05, 0.27] | 4 studies · 200 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse effects ‐ ES versus solifenacin succinate Electrical stimulation vs drug therapy | RR 0.09 [0.01, 1.6] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) versus PFMT alone
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs PFMT alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs PFMT alone | RR 2.82 [1.44, 5.52] | 1 study · 51 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs PFMT alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs PFMT alone | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 201 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cost‐effectiveness Electrical stimulation plus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs PFMT alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy versus behavioural therapy alone
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy vs behavioural therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy vs behavioural therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy vs behavioural therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation plus behavioural therapy vs behavioural therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy versus drug therapy alone
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 248 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Electrical stimulation plus drug therapy vs drug therapy alone | RR 0.45 [0.04, 4.55] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week versus ES twice a week
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES twice a week | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES twice a week | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week versus ES three times a week
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved ( Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES three times a week | RR 0.97 [0.6, 1.57] | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence ( Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES three times a week | RR 0.8 [0.29, 2.21] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
OAB‐related quality of life ( Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES three times a week | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ( Electrical stimulation (ES) once a week vs ES three times a week | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) versus motor threshold ES
Population: Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants cured or improved Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) vs motor threshold ES | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) vs motor threshold ES | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
OAB‐related quality of life Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) vs motor threshold ES | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects Sensory threshold electrical stimulation (ES) vs motor threshold ES | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Electrical stimulation compared to no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment for overactive bladder in adults
Population: overactive bladder in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with no improvement in OAB symptoms Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment | RR 0.54 [0.47, 0.63] | 8 studies · 647 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants with no improvement in UUI Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment | RR 0.65 [0.55, 0.77] | 4 studies · 324 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
QoL due to OAB Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 240 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of participants with adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment | RR 0.96 [0.9, 1.03] | 3 studies · 450 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cost‐effectiveness ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation vs no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Electrical stimulation compared to conservative treatment for overactive bladder in adults
Population: overactive bladder in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with no improvement in OAB symptoms ‐ ES versus PFMT + biofeedback Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | RR 0.79 [0.51, 1.21] | 1 study · 69 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of participants with no improvement in OAB symptoms ‐ ES versus PFMT Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | RR 0.97 [0.6, 1.57] | 1 study · 69 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of participants with adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of participants with no improvement in UUI ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
QoL due to OAB Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 69 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cost‐effectiveness ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation vs conservative treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Electrical stimulation compared to drug treatment for overactive bladder in adults
Population: overactive bladder in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with no improvement in OAB symptoms Electrical stimulation vs drug treatment | RR 0.66 [0.48, 0.9] | 5 studies · 265 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of participants with no improvement in UUI Electrical stimulation vs drug treatment | RR 0.94 [0.43, 2.06] | 1 study · 64 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of participants with adverse effects Electrical stimulation vs drug treatment | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 208 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
QoL due to OAB ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation vs drug treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
Cost‐effectiveness ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation vs drug treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Electrical stimulation plus another treatment compared to other treatment alone for overactive bladder in adults
Population: overactive bladder in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of participants with adverse effects Electrical stimulation plus another treatment vs other treatment alone | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 120 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of participants with no improvement in UUI ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation plus another treatment vs other treatment alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
QoL due to OAB ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation plus another treatment vs other treatment alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cost‐effectiveness ‐ not reported Electrical stimulation plus another treatment vs other treatment alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants with no improvement in OAB symptoms Electrical stimulation plus another treatment vs other treatment alone | RR 0.7 [0.39, 1.24] | 2 studies · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |