Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results.



Key Questions Addressed
1 KQ 1: What are the benefits and harms of nonpharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 2: What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other? KQ 3: What are the comparative benefits and harms of nonpharmacological versus pharmacological treatments of UI in women? KQ 4: What are the benefits and harms of combined nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment of UI in women?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results.
Author Lim R., Liong ML., Leong WS., Karim Khan NA., Yuen KH.
Country School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia; School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: renly_lim@hotmail.com.
Year 2017
Numbers Pubmed ID: 27871927

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: All studies
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Pulsed magnetic stimulation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 sham
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/countries Malaysia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria female, 21yo or older, SUI with cough, ICIQ-UI SF score 6 or more, ability to perform a 1 hour pad test.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria other subtypes of UI, severe cardiac arrhythmia, pacemaker, neurological condition, pelvic radiation, prior SUI surgery, prior treatment with pulsed magnetic stimulation, certain medications, stage 3 or 4 prolapse, fistula, urethral sphincter defect, PVR > 200cc, pregnancy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
UI type 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
listed in supplementary table 1, I can't get this to load.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Men included 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Special populations
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
listed in supplementary table 1, I can't get this to load.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes demographics listed in supplementary table 1, I can't get this to load.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Did participants fail previous treatment? No (explicitly treatment naive)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study years 2013-2015
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial name (if given)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper cite a previous paper from the same study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Pulsed magnetic stimulation sham Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant flow 60 60 120
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
60 60 120
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Pulsed magnetic stimulation sham Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


2 months

N Analyzed 60 60 P-Value <0.001
Percentage 41.7 6.7
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Pulsed magnetic stimulation sham Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


2 months

N Analyzed 60 60 P-Value 0.001
Percentage 31.7 5
Outcome: Cure etc.      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Pulsed magnetic stimulation sham


2 months

N Analyzed 60 60
Counts 45 13
Outcome: Satisfaction with intervention      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Pulsed magnetic stimulation sham


2 months

N Analyzed 57 58
Counts 47 27


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:.....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Allocation concealment Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:.....Blinding of PATIENTS Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Intention-to-treat-analysis Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS (or "DOUBLE BLIND") Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data (attrition bias) Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline (selection bias) Unclear RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Compliance with interventions Low RoB
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS.....Patients in different intervention groups selected in an equivalent manner
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS....Baseline differences between groups accounted for (Adjusted analysis)?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Other issues No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Were interventions adequately described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.