The economic burden of overactive bladder in the United States: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Overactive bladder (OAB) affects up to 17% of the United States (US) population. This study aimed to synthesize estimates of direct and indirect costs of OAB in the US and compare costs among those with and without OAB. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase, from 2003 to 2016, following PRISMA guidelines. The target population was adults with idiopathic OAB or urge urinary incontinence from the US. Data were extracted on study and patient characteristics, all-cause and OAB-specific direct costs, resource use, and indirect costs. Costs were inflated to a common price year of 2016 USD. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Mean insurer paid all-cause total direct healthcare costs ranged from 8168 to 15 569 USD, and OAB-specific costs ranged from 656 to 860 USD per-patient annually. Estimates of the incremental costs for OAB patients compared to non-OAB comparators ranged from 43% to 117%. One study estimated total annual indirect costs of OAB at 11 134 USD per-patient. CONCLUSIONS: The range of direct healthcare costs reported for managing patients with OAB varied, but was relatively small given the differing contributing data sources, study designs, and cost definitions. Direct costs were consistently higher among patients with OAB versus non-OAB comparisons, from a 1.4- to >2-fold increase annually. OAB-specific costs made up a small proportion of all-cause costs, highlighting the clinical and economic impact of OAB-related conditions such as falls, urinary tract infection, and depression. Few studies were identified that examined the indirect costs of OAB in the US.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".