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

F Stewart*, Luis F Gameiro, Regina El Dib, Monica O. Gameiro, Anil Kapoor, Joao L. Amaro

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: 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.

Objectives: To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence 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 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: 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.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.

Main results: We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. 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. For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback. Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121). Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51). There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life. There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence). Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES. There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped.

Authors' conclusions: Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD010098
Pages (from-to)1-231
Number of pages231
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2016
Issue number12
Early online date9 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Overactive Urinary Bladder
Electric Stimulation
Electrodes
Pelvic Floor
Muscles
Placebos
Odds Ratio
Urinary Incontinence
Confidence Intervals
Propantheline
Therapeutics
MEDLINE
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Equipment and Supplies
Quality of Life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Stewart, F., Gameiro, L. F., El Dib, R., Gameiro, M. O., Kapoor, A., & Amaro, J. L. (2017). Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(12), 1-231. [CD010098]. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults. / Stewart, F; Gameiro, Luis F; El Dib, Regina; Gameiro, Monica O.; Kapoor, Anil; Amaro, Joao L.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2016, No. 12, CD010098, 2017, p. 1-231.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Stewart, F, Gameiro, LF, El Dib, R, Gameiro, MO, Kapoor, A & Amaro, JL 2017, 'Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2016, no. 12, CD010098, pp. 1-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4
Stewart, F ; Gameiro, Luis F ; El Dib, Regina ; Gameiro, Monica O. ; Kapoor, Anil ; Amaro, Joao L. / Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 ; Vol. 2016, No. 12. pp. 1-231.
@article{1df15b1b3adc4dd0bfd29d8eed40a0db,
title = "Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults",
abstract = "Background: 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. Objectives: To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence 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 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. Selection criteria: 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. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Main results: We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. 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. For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95{\%} 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95{\%} CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95{\%} CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback. Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95{\%} CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121). Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95{\%} CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51). There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life. There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95{\%} CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95{\%} CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence). Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES. There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. Authors' conclusions: Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.",
author = "F Stewart and Gameiro, {Luis F} and {El Dib}, Regina and Gameiro, {Monica O.} and Anil Kapoor and Amaro, {Joao L.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4",
language = "English",
volume = "2016",
pages = "1--231",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults

AU - Stewart, F

AU - Gameiro, Luis F

AU - El Dib, Regina

AU - Gameiro, Monica O.

AU - Kapoor, Anil

AU - Amaro, Joao L.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Background: 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. Objectives: To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence 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 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. Selection criteria: 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. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Main results: We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. 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. For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback. Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121). Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51). There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life. There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence). Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES. There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. Authors' conclusions: Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

AB - Background: 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. Objectives: To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence 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 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. Selection criteria: 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. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Main results: We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. 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. For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride. Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback. Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121). Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51). There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life. There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence). Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES. There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. Authors' conclusions: Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85003666480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4

M3 - Review article

VL - 2016

SP - 1

EP - 231

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 12

M1 - CD010098

ER -