Date of Award


Degree Type

Selective Evidence-Based Medicine Review

Degree Name

Master of Science in Health Sciences - Physician Assistant

Department Chair

John Cavenagh, PhD, PA-C


OBJECTIVE: The objective of this selective EBM review is to determine whether or not Magnetic stimulation is an effective treatment for women with urinary incontinence.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of three published, randomized controlled trials (two double-blind and one single blinded), all English language.

DATA SOURCES: The three randomized controlled trials that were used for this review were found using PubMed and EBSCOhost. Articles were selected based on relevance and that the outcomes of the studies mattered to patients.

OUTCOME(S) MEASURED: Improvement of urinary incontinence measured by pad-tests and questionnaires.

RESULTS: The results of the But study suggest that magnetic stimulation is not much more effective when compared to the control. Gilling et al. demonstrated that there was a statistically significant improvement in the active arm at 8-wks for 20-min pad test, #pads/day, PFM strength, 24-h pad test, I-QOL and KHQ scores. Although p-values suggest improvement, comparing changes in each variable from baseline between groups using ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in any outcome measure at 8 weeks or 6 months. Wallis et al. demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in the outcome measures between baseline and 12 weeks for the treatment and control groups. On the subjective measure there was a statistically significant difference between the active and control groups (p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: The results of these three randomized controlled trials suggest that magnetic stimulation is not much more effective than a placebo in the treatment of urinary incontinence.