A randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness and cost effectiveness of naturopathic cranberry products as prophylaxis against urinary tract infection in women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine, from a societal perspective, the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of concentrated cranberry tablets, versus cranberry juice, versus placebo used as prophylaxis against lower urinary tract infection (UTI) in adult women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty sexually active women aged 21 through 72 years were randomized for one year to one of three groups of prophylaxis: placebo juice + placebo tablets versus placebo juice + cranberry tablets, versus cranberry juice + placebo tablets. Tablets were taken twice daily, juice 250 ml three times daily. Outcome measures were: (1) a >50% decrease in symptomatic UTI's per year (symptoms + >or= 100 000 single organisms/ml) and (2) a >50% decrease in annual antibiotic consumption. Cost effectiveness was calculated as dollar cost per urinary tract infection prevented. Stochastic tree decision analytic modeling was used to identify specific clinical scenarios for cost savings. RESULTS: Both cranberry juice and cranberry tablets statistically significantly decreased the number of patients experiencing at least 1 symptomatic UTI/year (to 20% and 18% respectively) compared with placebo (to 32%) (p<0.05). The mean annual cost of prophylaxis was $624 and $1400 for cranberry tablets and juice respectively. Cost savings were greatest when patients experienced >2 symptomatic UTI's per year (assuming 3 days antibiotic coverage) and had >2 days of missed work or required protective undergarments for urgency incontinence. Total antibiotic consumption was less annually in both treatment groups compared with placebo. Cost effectiveness ratios demonstrated cranberry tablets were twice as cost effective as organic juice for prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Cranberry tablets provided the most cost-effective prevention for UTI.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".