Effects of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on females with overactive bladder syndrome in multiple sclerosis a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Scientific Initiation (SI) is an educational activity that allows students to begin their scientific training and research under the guidance of an experienced researcher. While several studies have examined students' perceptions of SI, research on the perspective of researchers working in this field is currently lacking. Thus, this study's aim is to describe the protocol design for conducting a systematic review. At the same time, the review aims also to identify factors influencing the work of researchers in SI and explore the motivations leading researchers to engage in research projects within institutions and their respective impacts.

METHOD AND ANALYSES

Literature search will be done using the bibliographic databases, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycNet, CINAHL Plus, ERIC, SocINDEX, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was guided by the PICo framework (Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context). The preparation and development of this protocol following guidelines were employed: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies 2015 (PRESS 2015), and PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S). Original, peer-reviewed articles that examine the factors related to the work of researchers in SI will be included without any language or publication date restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies will be screened by two independent researchers. The included studies will be analyzed to identify factors, policies, and their impacts obtained analytically. Findings will be objectively categorized and synthetically represented through figures, diagrams, and graphic models. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and the Downs and Black checklists. A third senior reviewer will resolve any discrepancies.

DISCUSSION

We aim to understand the factors that drive researchers to engage in SI research through the dissemination of the findings of this systematic review. This may aid the development of institutional strategies and actions that can support the enhancement of SI programs and encourage greater researcher participation.

Efficacy of Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to systematically review the current literature on the effects of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on multiple sclerosis-induced neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 2022. Metaanalysis was carried out using the comprehensive meta-analysis tool.

RESULTS

Our inclusion criteria were met by 12 studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation/transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on multiple sclerosis-induced neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Comparing the postintervention results to the baseline showed that the rate of frequency was decreased in both percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation groups after intervention. The overall mean change of tibial nerve stimulation on frequency was -2.623 (95% CI: -3.58, -1.66; P < .001, I 2 : 87.04) among 6 eligible studies. The post-void residual was decreased after treatment in both methods of tibial nerve stimulation, with an overall mean difference of -31.13 mL (95% CI: -50.62, -11.63; P=.002, I 2 : 71.81). The other urinary parameters, including urgency (mean difference: -4.69; 95% CI: -7.64, -1.74; P < .001, I 2 : 92.16), maximum cystometric capacity (mean difference: 70.95; 95% CI: 44.69, 97.21; P < .001, I 2 : 89.04), and nocturia (mean difference: -1.41; 95% CI: -2.22, 0.60; P < .001, I 2 : 95.15), were improved after intervention, too. However, the results of subgroup analysis showed no effect of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on urinary incontinence (mean difference: -2.00; 95% CI: -4.06, 0.06; P=.057, I 2 : 95.22) and nocturia (mean difference: -0.39; 95% CI: -1.15, 0.37; P=.315, I 2 : 84.01). In terms of mean voided volume, the evidence was related to only percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with a mean change of 75.01 mL (95% CI: -39.40, 110.61; P < .001, I 2 : 85.04).

CONCLUSION

Although the current literature suggests that tibial nerve electrostimulation might be an effective method for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and derived from small, mostly nonrandomized trials with a high risk of bias and confounding.