Have any peer-reviewed studies attributed new urinary incontinence treatments to private individuals or tech entrepreneurs?

1. What the peer‑reviewed record actually shows about who creates UI treatments

Clinical and review literature on emerging UI therapies routinely describes technologies produced by companies (for example the eCoin implant developed by Valencia Technologies and nerve‑stimulation devices such as BlueWind™) and evaluates their safety and effectiveness in clinical contexts, but these papers attribute the product to corporate developers and clinical investigators rather than to named entrepreneurs as sole inventors ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

2. Examples: digital therapeutics and devices appear in peer‑reviewed studies, not entrepreneur biographies

Randomized trials, observational studies and narrative reviews have examined digital pelvic‑floor programs and implantable or wearable stimulators; for instance a retrospective real‑world outcomes study of a prescription digital therapeutic for female UI was published in the peer‑reviewed literature and reports on the program’s effectiveness and design without elevating a single founder as the provenance of the therapy ^{[2] [5]}. Similarly, clinical descriptions of the FDA‑cleared eCoin system note the company that developed it and the post‑approval study sites tracking outcomes, not a lone tech founder as the originator ^[1].

3. Why peer‑reviewed papers avoid singling out private individuals

Peer‑reviewed articles and regulatory guidance focus on evidence — trial design, outcomes, safety and generalizability — and therefore typically credit academic investigators, sponsoring companies or consortia rather than individual entrepreneurs; FDA guidance on device investigations emphasizes study design and device performance, reflecting institutional responsibility for clinical data rather than personal authorship narratives ^[4]. Systematic reviews and evidence reports similarly synthesize technology classes (e.g., laser, stem cell, nerve stimulation) without tracing them to specific entrepreneurs ^{[6] [3] [7]}.

4. Industry publications and market reports fill the gap but are not peer‑reviewed

Market analyses and press releases frequently name companies and sometimes highlight charismatic founders or startup narratives, but those sources are not peer‑reviewed primary research and therefore are not the same as scientific attribution in academic journals; market reports and conference coverage discuss growing commercial pipelines and devices but do not substitute for peer‑reviewed claims that single individuals invented a clinically validated therapy ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Limits of available reporting and where attribution does appear

The provided literature shows peer‑reviewed evidence for company‑developed technologies (digital PFMT, implantable stimulators, novel drug formulations) and describes collaborations among clinicians, industry and regulators, but it does not contain examples where a peer‑reviewed study explicitly attributes the development of a new UI treatment to a private individual or tech entrepreneur by name as the originator; press and institutional pieces sometimes connect products to their corporate developers (e.g., Valencia Technologies and eCoin) but that is different from peer‑reviewed attribution to an entrepreneur ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If specific papers outside the supplied set name entrepreneurs as inventors, those were not in the reviewed sources and cannot be confirmed here.

Conclusion: a qualified answer

In sum, peer‑reviewed studies do attribute new urinary incontinence treatments to companies, multidisciplinary teams and clinical trialists and evaluate those interventions in scientific terms, but the peer‑reviewed record accessible in the provided sources does not present new UI treatments as being attributed to single private individuals or tech entrepreneurs; any such entrepreneurial credit tends to appear in non‑peer‑reviewed reporting or corporate materials rather than the scientific literature ^{[2] [1] [4] [3]}.