From 8,930 abstracts (2,121 ICS, 558 IUGA, 2,019 EAU, and 4,232 AUA) we selected six eligible devices, listed in Table 1. At the exhibition floor we found four additional devices. No devices were found in abstracts presented at the AUA meetings. ICS meetings were the most common source to find abstracts on pelvic floor devices: data on eight devices were presented at the annual meetings. In Table 1 we summarized the information of the included devices.
Main conditions described were stress UI (five devices), UI (two devices), or other (three devices). Eight devices were meant as treatment devices, whereas the two other devices were both diagnostic and therapeutic devices.
For six devices (A, C, D, E, H, J), we found no full text publications. Two of these devices (D, H) were not yet available on the market. Data from the first studies was presented at ICS 2017. For three other devices, first presentations at scientific meetings were held in 2016 (A, C), and 2011 (J). No publications were available after that, nor was information available from manufacturers websites. Device E was presented at the exhibition floor of the ICS. No full text publications, nor data from other studies was available for this device. References included on the manufacturers website did not provide additional studies published in journals.
For device B, results from a pilot study on 40 patients had been presented at a scientific meeting in 2012, and were consequently published full-text in 2015. Notably, the manufacturers website includes references to studies in which it is unclear if the device itself was the topic of the study.
For device D, a diagnostic validation study including 10 patients with voiding dysfunction was presented at ICS 2017, and published as full text paper in 2017 (ePub ahead of print). Notably, this device is presented as a novel device, but this device shows similarities with a device for which 19 publications were found. These publications focused on pelvic floor muscle strength measurements, but not on therapeutic goals.
For device F, we found two publications. One case report and one case study. Presentations in 2017 included a RCT with 47 women and a RCT with 51 women, from which it is unclear if these are two separate trials, or two reports of one ongoing trial.
For device G (presented at the exhibition floor at ICS 2017, without abstracts detected in our search), we found a phase III trial comparing the device to no treatment in 55 women, published in 2012. No further publications followed this paper.
For device I we found a diagnostic validation study including 229 healthy volunteers, and a RCT with 58 OAB patients comparing toilet behavior and lifestyle instructions with pelvic floor muscle training supported with the device.