Summary of findings 6. Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.

Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment for UI
Patient or population: All men after radical prostatectomy Intervention: Prevention 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	Prevention of UI after radical: electric or magnetic energy versus no treatment
Number of incontinent men after 12 months ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
Quality of life score assessed using (ICIQ‐SF score) ‐ within 6 to 12 months	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	32 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3
Adverse events ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment
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;
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 Allocation concealment is unclear
 ² 95% CI is very wide (‐2.15 to 5.35)
 ³ Funnel plot cannot be used as there are fewer than 10 trials