Alpha‐blockers for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. A report from the Neuro‐Urology Promotion Committee of the International Continence Society (ICS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We aimed to systematically assess the evidence on the efficacy and safety of alpha‐blockers in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) suffering from neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used to perform this systematic review. An electronic search of Cochrane register, Embase, Medline, Scopus (last search 3 March 2018) and screening of reference lists as well as reviews were used to identify the studies. Articles were included if they reported on efficacy/safety of alpha‐blockers for the treatment of NLUTD in patients with MS. Results After screening of 7′015 abstracts, three studies enrolling a total of 50 patients were included: one randomized, placebo‐controlled, single‐blind trial and two prospective cohort studies. Alpha‐blocker treatment was successful in 50% to 96% of the patients. Pooling data from the three included studies, the relative risk for successful alpha‐blocker treatment was 3.89 (95% confidence interval 2.7‐7.0). The general safety profile of alpha‐blockers was favorable with 8% of the patients reporting adverse events. Conclusions Alpha‐blockers may be effective and safe for treating NLUTD in female and male patients with MS but the studies were small and the overall quality of evidence was low. To make definitive conclusions, well designed randomized controlled trials are highly warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".