ArticleBMJ open2024
Electroacupuncture versus solifenacin succinate for female overactive bladder: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05798403 (Electroacupuncture Versus Solifenacin Succinate for Female Overactive Bladder), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Electroacupuncture Versus Solifenacin Succinate for Female Overactive Bladder: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOveractive bladder (OAB) affects approximately 500 million people worldwide, with a higher prevalence in women than in men, significantly impacting the quality of life of female patients. Treatment options for OAB are currently limited. Previous research has proposed that electroacupuncture could be a viable treatment for OAB in women, but there is a lack of high-quality clinical evidence. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of electroacupuncture as a safe and efficient non-pharmacological treatment for female OAB by comparing it with solifenacin succinate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre, single-blind, double-dummy randomised controlled non-inferiority clinical trial involving 204 eligible female participants with OAB. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the electroacupuncture group (receiving electroacupuncture and placebo) or the solifenacin succinate group (receiving sham electroacupuncture and solifenacin succinate). Each participant will undergo 12 sessions of electroacupuncture (or sham electroacupuncture) treatment and solifenacin succinate (or placebo) treatment over a 4-week period. The primary outcome measure will be the percentage change in the number of micturition episodes every 24 hours at week 4 compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes will include a percentage reduction in the number of micturition episodes every 24 hours at 2th, 8th and 16th weeks of the trial, Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, number of urinary incontinence and urgency episodes every 24 hours based on a 3-day voiding diary, OAB Questionnaire, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, King's Health Questionnaire and Participant Self-evaluation of Therapeutic Effects. Adverse events will be monitored throughout the study. Efficacy analyses will be conducted on both the intention-to-treat population and the per-protocol set population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (approval number: 2022LCSY097). Each participant will sign a written informed consent before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER : NCT05798403.
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.