MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duloxetine compared with placebo for treating women with symptoms of overactive bladder

2007· article· en· W2018804866 on OpenAlexaff
William D. Steers, Sender Herschorn, Karl J. Kreder, Kate H. Moore, Kris Strohbehn, Ilker Yalcin, Richard C. Bump

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineMedicineOveractive bladderPlaceboDuloxetine HydrochlorideUrologyUrinary incontinenceAdverse effectQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialUrinary urgencyClinical endpointInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate duloxetine (a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor) in women with symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB), as it has been shown to increase the bladder capacity in an animal model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 306 women (aged 21-84 years) were recruited and randomly assigned to placebo (153) or duloxetine (80-mg/day for 4 weeks increased to 120-mg/day for 8 weeks; 153). Symptoms of OAB were defined as bothersome urinary urgency and/or urge urinary incontinence (UI) for > or =3 months. Participants were also required to have a mean daytime voiding interval (VI) of < or=2 h and urodynamic observations of either detrusor overactivity (DOA) or urgency which limited bladder capacity to <400 mL, both with no stress UI (SUI). The primary efficacy analysis compared the treatment effects on mean change from baseline to endpoint in the mean number of voiding episodes (VE)/24 h. The secondary efficacy analyses compared the treatment effects on the number of UI episodes (IE)/24 h, in the Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire (I-QOL) score, and on the mean daytime VI. Safety was assessed with vital signs, adverse event reporting, routine laboratory testing, electrocardiogram, and the measurement of postvoid residual urine volumes (PVR). RESULTS: Patients randomized to duloxetine had significant improvements over those randomized to placebo for decreases in VE and IE, for increases in the daytime VI, and for improvements in I-QOL scores at both doses of duloxetine. Urodynamic studies showed no significant increases in maximum cystometric capacity or in the volume threshold for DOA. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with duloxetine (nausea, 31%; dry mouth, 16%; dizziness, 14%; constipation, 14%; insomnia, 13%; and fatigue, 11%) were the same as those reported by women with SUI and were significantly more common with duloxetine than placebo. Laboratory assessments, vital signs and electrocardiograms were stable relative to baseline, with no relevant differences detected between groups. There was a significant difference in the change in PVR with duloxetine (<5 mL mean increase) but no patient reported hesitancy or retention. CONCLUSION: In this trial, duloxetine was better than placebo for treating women with 'wet' and 'dry' symptoms of OAB associated with DOA or a bladder capacity of <400 mL.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207