ArticlePloS one2016
Testing and Treating Women after Unsuccessful Conservative Treatments for Overactive Bladder or Mixed Urinary Incontinence: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation Based on the BUS Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive urodynamic investigations in the management of women with refractory overactive bladder symptoms: FUTURE, a superiority RCT and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Long-term cost-effectiveness of invasive urodynamic studies for overactive bladder in women.BJU international · 2025Article
- The role of conventional urodynamic in diagnosing specific types of urinary incontinence in women.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Article
- Invasive urodynamic testing prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women: cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses in the context of a mixed methods feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of bladder ultrasonography, clinical history, and urodynamic testing in guiding treatment decisions in a secondary care setting for women failing first line conservative treatment for overactive bladder or urgency-predominant mixed urinary incontinence.
designModel-based economic evaluation from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective using data from the Bladder Ultrasound Study (BUS) and secondary sources.
methodsCost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree and a 5-year time horizon based on the outcomes of cost per woman successfully treated and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and a value of information analysis are also undertaken.
resultsBladder ultrasonography is more costly and less effective test-treat strategy than clinical history and urodynamics. Treatment on the basis of clinical history alone has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £491,100 per woman successfully treated and an ICER of £60,200 per QALY compared with the treatment of all women on the basis of urodynamics. Restricting the use of urodynamics to women with a clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence only is the optimal test-treat strategy on cost-effectiveness grounds with ICERs of £19,500 per woman successfully treated and £12,700 per QALY compared with the treatment of all women based upon urodynamics. Conclusions remained robust to sensitivity analyses, but subject to large uncertainties.
conclusionsTreatment based upon urodynamics can be seen as a cost-effective strategy, and particularly when targeted at women with clinical history of mixed urinary incontinence only. Further research is needed to resolve current decision uncertainty.
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.