PRISMA 2020 checklist.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Meta-analysis for the primary outcome (1h pad test) at week 4.

Meta-analysis for the primary outcome (1h pad test) at week 4.</p

Characteristics of the studies included.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Secondary outcome (health-related quality of life) of the studies included.

Secondary outcome (health-related quality of life) of the studies included.</p

Database research strings.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Sensitivity analysis.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Primary outcome (pad test) of the studies included.

Primary outcome (pad test) of the studies included.</p

GRADE approach assessment.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Risk of bias assessment of the included studies.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div