A rapid evidence assessment for extracorporeal magnetic stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal magnetic stimulation (EMS) is a non-invasive treatment for urinary incontinence (UI) in women, but its effectiveness in men is not well known. This review identifies and evaluates the evidence supporting EMS for treating UI in adult men. METHODS: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PEDro databases up to November 2024. Studies included EMS alone or compared to other treatments in men with UI. A qualitative assessment of the evidence was carried out. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist for randomized and non-randomized studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Of 285 studies screened, nine met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 181 men treated with EMS, mostly post-prostatectomy. Four RCTs, with qualities ranging from fair to good, and small sample sizes (n=16-36), found EMS led to earlier continence compared to pelvic floor muscle therapy (PFMT) and was superior to sham treatment. One study reported significant improvements in urodynamic measures after EMS, and another showed a 48% reduction in 24-hour pad usage, sustained at 12.5 months. Several studies indicated that EMS accelerated symptom improvement compared to PFMT but had similar long-term outcomes. All studies using validated quality-of-life measures reported significant improvements after EMS. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for EMS in treating male UI is limited but generally positive. EMS may promote faster continence recovery than PFMT, with similar long-term outcomes. Larger, high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice and recommendations for different subgroups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".