Stimulation of the tibial nerve—a randomised trial for urinary problems associated with Parkinson’s—the STARTUP trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: non-motor symptoms such as bladder dysfunction are common (80%) in people with Parkinson's increasing the risk for falls with a negative impact on health-related costs and quality of life.We undertook STARTUP to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using an adhesive electrode to stimulate the transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) to treat bladder dysfunction in people with Parkinson's disease (PD).Study design, materials and methods: STARTUP was a parallel two-arm, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Each participant attended one clinic visit to complete consent, be randomised using a computer-generated system and to be shown how to use the device.The trial had two co-primary outcome measures: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). These were completed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. A bladder frequency chart and resource questionnaire were also completed. RESULTS: two hundred forty two participants were randomised. About 59% of participants were male, the mean age was 69 years and mean time since diagnosis was 6 years. Questionnaire return rate was between 79 and 90%.There was a statistically significantly lower score in the active group at 6 weeks in the IPSS questionnaire (mean difference (Standard deviation, SD) 12.5 (6.5) vs 10.9 (5.5), effect size -1.49, 95% CI -2.72, -0.25). There was no statistically significant change in any other outcome. CONCLUSION: TTNS was demonstrated to be safe with a high level of compliance. There was a significant change in one of the co-primary outcome measures at the end of the treatment period (i.e. 6 weeks), which could indicate a benefit. Further fully powered RCTs are required to determine effective treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".