الفهرس 
Electrical stimulation techniques for treating stress urinary incontinence in women
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 163 |  |  |
| | | from | 163 | | |
Abstract
Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the most common type of urinary incontinence in women. It involves involuntary leakage of urine in response to abdominal pressure caused by activities, such as sneezing and coughing. The condition affects millions of women worldwide, causing physical discomfort as well as social distress and even social isolation. Objectives: This review is aiming to assess the effects of electrical stimulation (ES) alone or in combination with other physical therapy modalities , for treating SUI in women, and to compare between the effects of the different techniques of ES in treating SUI in women. Methods: In preparation of this systematic review and meta-analysis the PRISMA statement guidelines was followed. The computer literature search was conducted in (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and ClinicalTrials.gov). For studies that published from 1990 to 2020 and follow this eligibility criteria: study design: randomized clinical trials (RCTs), population: women who diagnosed with SUI, intervention: one arm was ES with or without other physical therapy modalities versus the other physical therapy modalities or no treatment or placebo ES, outcomes: the primary outcome was the cure of SUI reported by the woman, in addition to other secondary outcomes. The assessment risk of bias was done according to Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools.Results: 35 studies included in this systematic review (2072 patients); 24 studies only included in the meta-analysis; 17 studies only report the primary outcome the subjective cure of SUI. Regard the primary outcome the subjective cure the ES was better than the control (Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI), 4.24 [1.44, 12.47]), also ES was better than placebo in the cure of SUI (Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI), 2.93 [0.76, 11.25]) but there was no significance difference between the ES and the pelvic floor muscles training (PFMT) or the vaginal cones (Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI), 0.90 [0.50, 1.63]), (Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI), 1.10 [0.70, 1.74]) respectively