Conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in Men After Prostate Surgery (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of active conservative treatment, compared with standard management, in regaining urinary continence at 12 months in men with urinary incontinence at 6 weeks after a radical prostatectomy or a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence after radical prostate surgery is common immediately after surgery, although the chance of incontinence is less after TURP than following radical prostatectomy. DESIGN: Two multicentre, UK, parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing active conservative treatment [pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) delivered by a specialist continence physiotherapist or a specialist continence nurse] with standard management in men after radial prostatectomy and TURP. SETTING: Men having prostate surgery were identified in 34 centres across the UK. If they had urinary incontinence, they were invited to enroll in the RCT. PARTICIPANTS: Men with urinary incontinence at 6 weeks after prostate surgery were eligible to be randomised if they consented and were able to comply with the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible men were randomised to attend four sessions with a therapist over a 3-month period. The therapists provided standardised PFMT and bladder training for male urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The control group continued with standard management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of clinical effectiveness was urinary incontinence at 12 months after randomisation, and the primary measure of cost-effectiveness was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Outcome data were collected by postal questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: Within the radical group (n = 411), 92% of the men in the intervention group attended at least one therapy visit and were more likely than those in the control group to be carrying out any PFMT at 12 months {adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.30 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.53]}. The absolute risk difference in urinary incontinence rates at 12 months between the intervention (75.5%) and control (77.4%) groups was -1.9% (95% CI -10% to 6%). NHS costs were higher in the intervention group [£ 181.02 (95% CI £ 107 to £ 255)] but there was no evidence of a difference in societal costs, and QALYs were virtually identical for both groups. Within the TURP group (n = 442), over 85% of men in the intervention group attended at least one therapy visit and were more likely to be carrying out any PFMT at 12 months after randomisation [adjusted RR 3.20 (95% CI 2.37 to 4.32)]. The absolute risk difference in urinary incontinence rates at 12 months between the intervention (64.9%) and control (61.5%) groups for the unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis was 3.4% (95% CI -6% to 13%). NHS costs [£ 209 (95% CI £ 147 to £ 271)] and societal costs [£ 420 (95% CI £ 54 to £ 785)] were statistically significantly higher in the intervention group but QALYs were virtually identical. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of one-to-one conservative physical therapy for men with urinary incontinence after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost-effective compared with standard care that includes the provision of information about conducting PFMT. Future work should include research into the value of different surgical options in controlling urinary incontinence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".