Hypnotherapy for Treatment of Overactive Bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: : The objective of the study was to obtain pilot data comparing hypnotherapy and behavioral therapy (hypnotherapy) to behavioral therapy alone (behavioral therapy) in overactive bladder (OAB) treatment. METHODS: : Women with OAB were randomized to hypnotherapy or behavioral therapy treatments. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the OAB-q Short Form (OAB-q SF) questionnaire, and voiding diaries were recorded, and within- and between-group differences were compared. RESULTS: : Twenty women enrolled in and completed the study. Both hypnotherapy and behavioral therapy groups improved their mean number of voids (P = 0.005, P = 0.01, respectively) and their OAB-q SF distress scores (P = 0.002, P = 0.03). The hypnotherapy group had significant improvement in quality-of-life scores (P < 0.001), whereas the behavioral group did not (P = 0.05). Between-group comparisons showed that the hypnotherapy group had superior PGI-I scores compared with the behavioral group (P < 0.009). The hypnotherapy group trended toward greater improvement in OAB-q quality-of-life scores compared with the behavioral therapy group (67% vs 42% improvement), although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07). Number of voids and OAB-q SF distress scores improved in both groups with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: : Both groups improved with treatment. Hypnotherapy resulted in superior PGI-I scores compared with behavioral therapy. Voiding and OAB-q SF results trended toward greater improvement with hypnotherapy. As a pilot study, recruitment was underpowered to find statistical differences between groups' voids and OAB scores. These findings support the need for an expanded trial that could likely show hypnotherapy to be superior in OAB treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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 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".