Intravaginal electrical stimulation as a monotherapy for female stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Magdalena Stania; Barbara Niemiec; Anna Kamieniarz; Daria Chmielewska

doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101624

Intravaginal electrical stimulation as a monotherapy for female stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2022 Nov:49:101624. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101624. Epub 2022 Jul 2.

Authors

Magdalena Stania¹, Barbara Niemiec², Anna Kamieniarz³, Daria Chmielewska⁴

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Sport Sciences, Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72a, 40-065, Katowice, Poland. Electronic address: m.stania@awf.katowice.pl.
² Department of Physiotherapy, Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72a, 40-065, Katowice, Poland.
³ Institute of Sport Sciences, Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72a, 40-065, Katowice, Poland.
⁴ Institute of Physiotherapy and Health Sciences, Electromyography and Pelvic Floor Muscles Laboratory, Department of Physical Medicine, Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72a, 40-065, Katowice, Poland.

PMID: 35803023
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101624

Abstract

Background and purpose: Since patients, physiotherapists and gynaecologists continue to seek effective conservative treatments for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the therapeutic efficacy of intravaginal electrical stimulation (ES) in women with SUI.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOHost and Ovid for randomized controlled trials. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics.

Results: Of the 686 records identified, a total of 10 articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the ES and no active treatment groups in the pooled objective cure rates (RR: 4.20; 95% CI: 1.70 to 10.40; p = 0.001; I² = 0%) and subjective cure or improvement rates (RR: 4.96; 95%: 1.01 to 24.37; p = 0.04; I² = 0%). No significant differences were found in the pooled number of incontinence episodes per 24 h (MD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.37; p = 0.56; I² = 0%), the pooled Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire scores (MD: 1.84; 95% CI: 2.11 to 5.80; p = 0.36; I² = 0%) or the pooled number of adverse effects (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.27; p = 0.23; I² = 0%) between the ES and other conservative treatment groups.

Conclusion: There was insufficient evidence for or against the use of intravaginal ES therapy for women with SUI, partly due to the variability in the interventions of the included trials and the small number of trials included.

Keywords: Electric stimulation; Female; Therapeutics; Urinary incontinence.

Publication types

Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Review

MeSH terms

Electric Stimulation
Electric Stimulation Therapy*
Female
Humans
Quality of Life
Urinary Incontinence, Stress* / therapy