Efficacy and Safety of Tol Terodine in People With Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare tolterodine with oxybutynin and placebo in people with neurogenic detrusor overactivity. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial plus open-label comparative stage. PARTICIPANTS: Ten participants with neurogenic detrusor overactivity due to spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis who used intermittent catheterization. METHODS: Bladder capacity on cystometrogram, a 10-day record of catheterization volumes, number of incontinent episodes per day, and perceived dry mouth using a visual analog scale (VAS) were measured for the following: (a) a blinded comparison: tolterodine, 2 mg twice daily, vs placebo, twice daily; and (b) an unblinded comparison: oxybutynin vs tolterodine, each at self-selected doses (SSDs). RESULTS: Tolterodine, 2 mg twice daily, was superior to placebo in enhancing catheterization volumes (P < 0.0005) and reducing incontinence (P < 0.001), but was comparable with placebo in cystometric bladder capacity. Efficacy of tolterodine SSD was comparable with oxybutynin SSD with regard to catheterization volumes, degree of incontinence, and cystometric bladder capacity. The side effect profile (dry mouth) was comparable between tolterodine, 2 mg twice daily, and placebo, but differed significantly when comparing tolterodine SSD with oxybutynin SSD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tolterodine, when used at SSDs, is comparable with oxybutynin at SSDs in enhancing bladder volume and improving continence, but with less dry mouth. Tolterodine at the recommended dosage of 2 mg twice daily improves incontinence and bladder volumes compared with placebo, and without significant dry mouth. Larger doses of tolterodine may be needed to achieve best effect in this population, but further studies are required.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".