Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation is of Limited Clinical Benefit to Women with Idiopathic Detrusor Overactivity: A Randomized Sham Controlled Trial

The effectiveness of magnetic stimulation for patients with pelvic floor dysfunction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Two studies had a high risk of detection bias, and six studies clearly reported the blinding of outcome assessment. Three trials excluded the dropout participants for data analysis which might increase the risk of attrition bias. All the studies described the selective reporting clearly.…”

“…Two RCTs ( n = 66) reported the effects of MS therapy with comparison to other therapies for the symptom of DO. In one trial comparing MS therapy and sham intervention in patients with DO, pad test, number of voids per 24 h, and QOL score improved equally in two groups; however, only number of leaks per day showed a significant reduction in the MS therapy group compared with placebo ( P = 0.003).…”

Pelvic floor muscle training for urgency urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review

“…As compared to controls, two of the three trials showed improvement in UUI with magnetic therapy [42,43]. One trial [42] showed significant decreases in urinary frequency and nocturia with magnetic stimulation, while Morris et al [44] reported nonsignificant decreases in UUI episodes, frequency, and nocturia. The potential for study-level bias exists as two of these studies [42,43] did not have adequate allocation concealment.…”

“…Three randomized controlled trials [42][43][44] involving a total of 110 women with UUI and MUI evaluated the efficacy of extracorporeal magnetic therapy (Table 4). Pooled analysis for UUI episodes, frequency, and nocturia could not be performed due to variation in inclusion criteria and reported outcomes.…”

“…The potential for study-level bias exists as two of these studies [42,43] did not have adequate allocation concealment. Blinding of the subjects and assessors did occur in two of these trials [42,44]. Although the outcomes measures for these trials were systematically measured, outcome bias may also be present as no trials reported an intent-to-treat analysis.…”