Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37993786›Full record

Trial reportBMC geriatrics2023

Cost consequence analysis of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) for urinary incontinence in care home residents alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Linda Fenocchi, Helen Mason, Lisa Macaulay, Catriona O'Dolan, Shaun Treweek, Joanne Booth

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03248362 (ELECtric Tibial Nerve Stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care Homes), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03248362 naunknown statusnot on this map

ELECtric Tibial Nerve Stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care Homes: ELECTRIC

TypeinterventionalSponsorGlasgow Caledonian UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled408ConditionsUrinary IncontinenceArmsTranscutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, Sham stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linda FenocchiYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. Linda.fenocchi@gcu.ac.uk.
Helen MasonYunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
Lisa MacaulayNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Catriona O'DolanNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Joanne BoothSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
Glasgow Caledonian University · GBUniversity of Stirling · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR HTA 15/130/73
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in more than half of residents of nursing and residential care homes and can have a detrimental impact on dignity and quality of life. Care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. We examined the costs and consequences of delivering TTNS to care home residents in comparison to sham (inactive) electrical stimulation.

methodsA cost consequence analysis approach was used to assemble and present the resource use and outcome data for the ELECTRIC trial which randomised 406 residents with UI from 37 care homes in the United Kingdom to receive 12 sessions of 30 min of either TTNS or sham (inactive) TTNS. TTNS was administered by care home staff over 6 weeks. Health state utility was measured using DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up. Staff completed a resource use questionnaire at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up, which also assessed use of absorbent pads.

resultsHRQoL did not change significantly in either randomised group. Delivery of TTNS was estimated to cost £81.20 per participant, plus training and support costs of £121.03 per staff member. 85% of participants needed toilet assistance as routine, on average requiring one or two staff members to be involved 4 or 5 times in each 24 h. Daily use of mobility aids and other assistive devices to use the toilet were reported. The value of staff time to assist residents to use the toilet (assuming an average of 5 min per resident per visit) was estimated as £19.17 (SD 13.22) for TTNS and £17.30 (SD 13.33) for sham (per resident in a 24-hour period).

conclusionsUse of TTNS to treat UI in care home residents did not lead to changes in resource use, particularly any reduction in the use of absorbent pads and no cost benefits for TTNS were shown. Managing continence in care homes is labour intensive, requiring both high levels of staff time and use of equipment aids.

trial registrationISRCTN98415244, registered 25/04/2018. NCT03248362 (Clinical trial.gov number), registered 14/08//2017.

Indexed as

Transcutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationUrinary IncontinenceCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality of LifeTibial NerveTreatment OutcomeCare homesCost consequence analysisEconomic evaluationTibial nerve stimulationUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID37993786
PMCPMC10666345
OpenAlexW4388902051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.