ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Comparative study of different combinations of mirabegron and antimuscarinics in treatment for overactive bladder syndrome in elderly patients.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'BJUI Clinical Dilemma': the overactive bladder.BJU international · 2026Article
- Article
- Examining the safety of mirabegron: an analysis of real-world pharmacovigilance data from the US FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Lower urinary tract dysfunction in the central nervous system neurogenic bladder and the real-life treatment outcome of botulinum toxin A.Tzu chi medical journalReview
- Review of simultaneous treatment with intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections during transurethral prostate surgery for men with bladder outlet obstruction and overactive bladder.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the therapeutic efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and patient preference in elderly patients with overactive bladder (OAB) receiving different combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin. Materials and Methods: Elderly OAB patients received mirabegron 25 mg (M25) daily for 1 month (1M) followed by randomization to receive M25 (Group 1), mirabegron 50 mg (M50, Group 2), solifenacin 5 mg (S5, group 3); or M25 plus S5 (Group 4) for further 2 months. Efficacy and AEs were evaluated. At the end of 3M, patients' preferred option for future treatment was investigated. Results: A total of 168 patients were enrolled, and 100 completed 3-month treatment. At 1M, all parameters improved significantly except postvoid residual (PVR), 23 (13.7%) patients had no symptom, 16 (9.5%) had no improvement, and 10 (6.0%) withdrew from the trial. Compared parameters at 3M with 1M revealed that quality of life, Patient's Perception of Bladder Condition scores, and voided volume improved significantly in group 1; the OAB Symptom Score (OABSS) increased in group 2; mean PVR and Global Response Assessment (GRA) deteriorated in group 3; and the OABSS and GRA improved in group 4. At 3M, the AEs prevalence increased significantly in group 3. Only 38.1% in group 4 preferred long-term usage of combination therapy. Conclusion: M25 daily is effective and safe in treating elderly OAB patients. Dose escalation to 50 mg or shifting to S5 does not increase the therapeutic efficacy. Combining M25 with S5 provides better treatment efficacy but is associated with lower patient compliance than M25 alone.
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.