Could Reduced Fluid Intake Cause the Placebo Effect Seen in Overactive Bladder Clinical Trials? Analysis of a Large Solifenacin Integrated Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the hypothesis that patients receiving placebo in overactive bladder (OAB) trials who experience less benefit from "treatment" continue with behavioral modifications such as fluid restriction, whereas those on active treatment adopt more normal drinking patterns. This may manifest itself as a reduction in micturition frequency (MF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interrogated a large integrated database containing pooled patient data from 4 randomized, placebo-controlled phase III OAB solifenacin studies. A statistical correction was applied to MF to remove the influence of fluid intake. RESULTS: Pooled analysis using patient-level data from 3011 patients and accounting for the studies within the models showed that all patients voided progressively less total urine per 24 hours during treatment than at baseline. However, reduction in total urine volume voided per 24 hours was larger in patients receiving placebo vs those on solifenacin; with a substantial decrease in 24-hour urine output in the placebo group from baseline to week 4, which was not the case in active groups. After correcting MF for volume voided for each patient using the statistical correction and averaging the corrected MF per treatment arm, the placebo effect almost disappeared. Patients on solifenacin voided less often, with a statistically significant increase in volume voided each time they voided, vs placebo. CONCLUSION: Assuming volume voided is a good surrogate measure for fluid intake, this analysis shows that fluid restriction almost completely explains the reduction in MF in the placebo group. In contrast, patients receiving active treatment adopt more normal drinking patterns once they start to perceive improvement in their OAB symptoms.
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 | 0.021 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".