Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This study employs systematic review and meta-analysis methodologies to investigate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal magnetic stimulation in treating pelvic floor dysfunction, based on published randomized clinical trials. The aim is to provide high-level evidence in evidence-based medicine for clinical decision-making and treatment interventions.

DATA SOURCES: Study were conducted to include randomized clinical trials from the inception of databases until March 2024 in four databases: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE.

REVIEW

METHODS

Eligible studies were selected by two independent investigators. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024526565).

RESULTS

A systematic review incorporating 24 studies and a meta-analysis involving 14 studies demonstrated significant differences in the improvement of patients with urinary incontinence when subjected to extracorporeal magnetic stimulation compared to control groups, as evidenced by the changes in ICIQ-SF and QOL scores (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = -0.73, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] [-1.05, -0.41], and SMD = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.82, -0.04], respectively). However, no substantial therapeutic effects were observed in improving functional impairments among patients with overactive bladder (OAB) or chronic pelvic pain (CPP).

CONCLUSION

There is considerable evidence supporting the efficacy of magnetic stimulation for treating urinary incontinence. However, further high-quality, large sample randomized controlled trials are necessary to strengthen the evidence for its effectiveness in addressing other pelvic floor dysfunctions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study does not involve a real-world clinical trial. The data used are from published clinical trials for secondary analysis. Therefore, clinical trial registration is not applicable. However, the review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024526565).