Tolterodine is equally effective in patients with mixed incontinence and those with urge incontinence alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of tolterodine, an antimuscarinic agent with a bladder-selective profile, in patients with mixed incontinence (MI, stress and urge) compared with patients with urge incontinence (UI) alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 239 patients with MI (urge predominating) and 755 with urge incontinence alone from a single-blind, multicentre trial of 1380 patients (80% female) with an overactive bladder. Those completing the trial were analysed 'per-protocol'. After a 7-day washout and a 3-day run-in to collect baseline information, patients were treated with tolterodine twice daily for 16 weeks. The two groups were compared for incontinence episodes/24 h, voiding frequency, nocturia episodes and pad usage after 16 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: After 16 weeks the median changes from baseline for all voiding variables were statistically significant for the MI and the UI groups (P < 0.001), with no apparent significant between-group differences. The median percentage reduction in incontinence episodes from baseline was 67% for the MI and 75% for the UI groups (P = 0.39). 'Dry' rates for the MI and UI groups at the end of the study were 39% (66/171) and 44% (243/552), respectively, whilst 24% of patients in each group (MI 40/170; UI 130/551) achieved a voiding pattern of < 8 voids/24 h. 'Cure' rates for nocturia and the reduction in the number of patients not using pads used were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Tolterodine is as effective in reducing leakage and other symptoms of an overactive bladder in patients with MI as it is in patients with UI alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".