Trial reportSaudi medical journal2015
Comparison of solifenacin and fesoterodine in treatment of overactive bladder.
Trial report in Saudi medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Updating the evidence on drugs to treat overactive bladder: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative assessment of efficacy and safety of approved oral therapies for overactive bladder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Anticholinergic Agents for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the use of solifenacin and fesoterodine in treatment of overactive bladder (OAB).
methodsThis prospective study was conducted on patients diagnosed with OAB who presenting to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology, School of Medicine, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey between October 2013 and August 2014. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=60) received 5 mg solifenacin per day, while Group 2 (n=59) received 4 mg fesoterodine per day. All the patients' OAB symptom scores (OABSS) in weeks 0, 4, and 12 were recorded. In addition, treatment costs and side effects of the drugs were evaluated.
resultsAverage OABSS (score 1) was determined as: 9.5 ± 2.8 for Group 1 and 10.7 ± 1.8 for Group 2 at week 0; 2.2 ± 1.2 (Group 1) and 2.4 ± 1.3 (Group 2) at week 4 (score 2); and 1.3 ± 0.5 for Group 1 and 1.3 ± 0.6 for Group 2 at week 12 (score 3). In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between the scores (p=0.062 (score 1), p=0.464 (score 2), and p=0.527 (score 3). The discontinuation rate of medication due to its side effects was 0 (0%) for Group 1, and 6 (10.2%) for Group 2. Intragroup changes in the scores 1-2, 1-3, and 2-3 values was statistically significant in both groups (p less than 0.001).
conclusionNo significant difference was found between the OABSS of these 2 drugs. However, discontinuation of drugs due to side effects was more frequent in fesoterodine.
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.