MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402947107 · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2024.09.012

Mirabegron Versus Placebo and Other Therapeutic Modalities in the Treatment of Patients with Overactive Bladder Syndrome—A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4402947107 on OpenAlexaff
Anirban Dey, G. Georgiadis, Justin Umezurike, Yuhong Yuan, Fawzy Farag, James N’Dow, Muhammad Imran Omar, Charalampos Mamoulakis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Focus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMirabegronOveractive bladderPlaceboModalitiesUrologyTherapeutic modalitiesTreatment modalityInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of overactive bladder (OAB) increases with age. Mirabegron and other drugs are used for the management of patients with OAB. To evaluate mirabegron versus other treatments for overactive bladder syndrome (OAB). METHODS: This randomised controlled trial (RCT)-based systematic review (CRD42020200394) was conducted following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, with standards reported in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 28 RCTs (n = 27 481 adults), comparing the following: mirabegron 25 mg versus placebo (n = 8798; six RCTs): significant changes in urgency urinary incontinence (mean difference [MD] -0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.56 to -0.26), total incontinence (MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.30), and nocturia (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02), and mirabegron 50 mg versus placebo (n = 14 933; 12 RCTs): significant changes in urgency urinary incontinence (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.31), urgency (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.33), total incontinence (MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.33), favouring mirabegron 25/50 mg; mirabegron 50 mg versus tolterodine 4 mg (n = 8008; five RCTs): significant changes in micturition (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.02) and overall adverse events (AEs; odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86), favouring mirabegron 50 mg; mirabegron 50 mg versus solifenacin 5 mg (n = 8911; four RCTs): significant changes in voided volume/micturition in millilitres (MD -7.77, 95% CI -12.93 to -2.61), favouring mirabegron 50 mg; and mirabegron 50 mg versus oxybutynin 73.5 mg (n = 302; one RCT): significant changes in overall AEs (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.16), favouring mirabegron 50 mg. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Mirabegron is effective, safe, and well tolerated. Coadministration with anticholinergics provides an advantageous additive effect without a higher occurrence of side effects. PATIENT SUMMARY: Mirabegron is effective, safe, and well tolerated for treating overactive bladder. When used in conjunction with anticholinergic medications, it provides extra benefits without causing more side effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology FocusSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207