↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010098.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stewart, Fiona, Gameiro, Orsi Lf, El Dib, Regina, Gameiro, Monica Orsi, Kapoor, Anil, Amaro, Joao Luiz

Abstract

Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency. To determine the effectiveness of: ES with non-implanted electrodes compared with placebo or any other active treatment for OAB; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 10 December 2014). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded. Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We identified 51 eligible trials (3443 randomised participants). Thirty-three trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective change in OAB symptoms. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.Twenty-three trials (1654 participants) compared ES with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve in people receiving ES than with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment (relative risk (RR) for no improvement 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.63). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that similar numbers of people receiving ES and no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment experienced adverse effects.Eight trials (542 participants) compared ES with conservative treatment. Very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference between ES and PFMT or PFMT plus biofeedback in OAB symptoms (RR for no improvement 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.21 and 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57 respectively). There was no evidence of a difference between ES and conservative treatment with regard to adverse effects.Sixteen trials (894 participants) compared ES with drug treatment (probanthine, tolterodine, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, trospium chloride, terodiline). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than drug treatment (RR for no improvement 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90). Low-quality evidence suggested a greater risk of adverse effects with oxybutynin (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.49) and with tolterodine (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.89) than with ES. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between ES and trospium hydrochloride (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25).Eight trials (252 participants) compared ES combined with another treatment versus the other treatment alone, two trials (48 participants) compared ES plus conservative treatment with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment and six trials (361 participants) compared different types of ES. None of these comparisons had sufficient evidence to indicate any differences between the treatment groups in terms of OAB or adverse effects.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that ES improved OAB-related quality of life more than no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. There was insufficient evidence of any difference between ES and any other treatment with regard to quality of life.There was insufficient evidence to determine if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. Electrical stimulation appeared to be more effective than both no treatment and drug treatment for OAB. There was insufficient evidence to determine if ES was more effective than conservative treatment or which type of ES was more effective. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 17 28%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,230,434
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,196
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,787
of 281,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.