Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2022
On-demand use of fesoterodine: a new paradigm for extended release antimuscarinics.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Polypharmacy on Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease.Drugs & aging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to compare on-demand and continuous use of fesoterodine 4 mg concerning efficacy and adverse effects.
methodsA total of 100 patients who were diagnosed with non-neurogenic overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome were included in the study. All patients were evaluated with MMSE, ICIQ-SF, SEAPI quality of health and OAB-V8 questionnaires, at the beginning, 1st month and 4th month. Fesoterodine 4 mg was started for treatment. At the end of the 1st month, patients who obtained benefit from the treatment were 1:1 randomized into two groups. In group 1, fesoterodine 4 mg was given 1 × 1 in a standard manner whereas in group 2 patients took the pills on demand. Both groups were evaluated for efficacy and adverse events at 4 months.
resultsFinal analyses included 69 patients. At 4-month follow-up, OAB-V8 scores were significantly improved compared to 1 month in both groups. Again at h months, no difference was detected between the two groups for MMSE, ICIQ-SF and SEAPI scores. In continuous usage group, 4th month MMSE scores were significantly lower than 1st month scores. At 4 months, dry mouth and constipation were lower in the on-demand group compared to continuous usage group.
conclusionsCompared to standard continuous usage, on-demand usage of fesoterodine showed similar efficacy with fewer adverse events.
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.