Summary of findings 2. Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.
| Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for postprostatectomy UI | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with postprostatectomy UI Intervention: Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Treatment of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment | |||||
| Number of incontinent men ‐ after 12 months | 63 per 1000 | 16 per 1000 (6 to 47) | RR 0.26 (0.09 to 0.74) | 413 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | |
| Urinary Incontinence Score (ICIQ‐SF UI score) ‐ after 12 months | The mean urinary incontinence score (iciq‐short form ui score) ‐ after 12 months in the intervention groups was 1.4 lower (5.03 lower to 2.23 higher) | 47 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3,4 | |||
| Urinary Incontinence Quality of Life Score (ICIQ‐SF) ‐ after 12 months | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 47 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3,5 | |
| Adverse events | 133 per 1000 | 77 per 1000 (15 to 387) | RR 0.58 (0.11 to 2.9) | 56 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3,6 | |
| Economic analysis using QALY ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment unclear is 1/2 trials taking part in the meta‐analysis 2 Funnel plot could not be used as there are fewer than 10 trials 3 Not applicable. Only one trial 4 95% CI very wide (‐5.03 to 2.23) 5 95% CI very wide (‐2.02 to 1.22) 6 95% CI very wide (0.11 to 2.90)