ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2014
Antimuscarinic use among individuals with urinary incontinence who reside in long-term care facilities.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess appropriateness of antimuscarinic use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) among treated and untreated urinary incontinence (UI) residents from 2007 to 2009.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis using the AnalytiCare(SM) database consisting of minimum data sets (MDS) assessments and prescription records of 90,660 residents from 2007 to 2009. UI (MDS H1b ≥ 1) residents with ≥ 14-day LTCF stay were identified and categorized as treated if they had ≥ 1 antimuscarinic prescription and untreated if they had no antimuscarinics. A random sample of untreated residents was matched based on treated residents' type of MDS assessment. We defined appropriate antimuscarinic use if residents had adequate cognitive function [≤ 4 on the cognitive performance scale (0 = intact to 6 = very severe impairment)] and mobility [scoring <4 on mobility for toileting scale (MDS item G1iA 0 = independent to 4 = total dependent)]. Chi-square tests were used to detect statistical difference between cohorts.
resultsA total of 5,327 residents (2,840 treated; 2,487 untreated) were selected [mean age (standard deviation) 80 (8), 81 (8) years; female (76, 65 %), respectively]. On study-defined MDS assessment, 63 % of treated and 69 % of untreated residents had UI (P < 0.01). Approximately 84 % of treated and 74 % of untreated residents may have had cognitive function and mobility sufficient for appropriate antimuscarinic use (P < 0.01).
conclusionsOur study identified a high percentage of LTCF residents with UI who may have been candidates for antimuscarinics. However, due to the MDS limitation, we were unable to identify overactive bladder patients among these untreated residents with UI. It is possible that untreated control residents had UI due to other factors not amenable to treatment with antimuscarinic agents. Therefore, choice of treatment for each resident needs to be individualized and carefully monitored for efficacy and adverse effects. This retrospective analysis requires prospective confirmation. Proper patient selection for antimuscarinic treatment requires careful assessment of underlying physical status including cognitive function, mobility, and comorbidities.
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.