Trial reportBMC health services research2011
Long term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of services for urinary symptoms.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the extent and priority of urinary symptoms there is little evidence available to inform service provision in relation to the long term effects of interventions. This study aims to determine the long term (6 year) clinical effectiveness and costs of a new continence nurse led service compared to standard care for urinary symptoms.
methodsA long term follow-up study of a 2-arm, non-blinded randomised controlled trial that recruited from a community based population between 1998-2000 in Leicestershire and Rutland UK was undertaken. 3746 men and women aged 40 years and over were followed up from the original trial. The continence nurse practitioner (CNP) intervention comprised a continence service provided by specially trained nurses delivering evidence-based interventions using pre-determined care pathways. The standard care (SC) arm comprised access to existing primary care including General Practitioner and continence advisory services in the area. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Improvement in one or more symptom. Secondary outcomes included: a) Leicester Impact scale; b) patient perception of problem; c) number of symptoms alleviated and cost-effectiveness; all were recorded at long term follow-up (average 6 years) post-randomisation.
resultsOverall at long-term follow-up (average 6 years) significantly more individuals in the CNP group (72%) had improved (i.e had fewer symptoms) compared to those in the SC group (67%) (difference of 5% 95% (CI = 0.6 to 9;p = 0.02)).
conclusionThe differences in outcome between the two randomised groups shown immediately post treatment had decreased by half in terms of symptom improvement at long term follow-up. Although the difference was statistically significant, the clinical significance may not be, although the direction of the difference favoured the new CNP service.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.