A double‐blind randomized dose‐response study comparing daily doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg controlled‐release oxybutynin: balancing efficacy with severity of dry mouth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, incidence of dry mouth and overall satisfaction with initial doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg of a new, once-daily, controlled-release (CR) form of oxybutynin for treating urge urinary incontinence (UUI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who reported urinary incontinence (UI) (one or more episodes/diary) and voiding frequency (eight or more voids/day) or urgency (one or more episodes/diary) during a 2-week baseline were randomized to once-daily 5, 10 or 15 mg CR oxybutynin for 4 weeks. Daily episodes of UI, voids, urgency, adverse events, dry mouth and satisfaction were recorded in a 3-day diary at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. In all, 237 patients were randomized and evaluated. RESULTS: Episodes of UI, voids and urgency were significantly reduced over the study period at all doses. Daily UI episodes were significantly lower with 15 mg/day than 5 and 10 mg/day. Dry mouth symptoms were similar in the 10 and 15 mg/day groups, and higher than in the 5 mg/day group. However, significantly greater overall satisfaction was reported with 15 than 5 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant dose-response relationships with CR oxybutynin for both UI episodes and dry mouth. The greatest satisfaction was with 15 mg/day, and the severity of dry mouth was comparable at 10 mg/day, indicating that greater efficacy at the higher dose did not compromise tolerability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".