ArticleBJU international2025
Long-term cost-effectiveness of invasive urodynamic studies for overactive bladder in women.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Catheters to Reduce Costs in Urodynamic Evaluation: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Trial
- The role of urodynamics in overactive bladder: a critical in-depth analysis of the FUTURE study.World journal of urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of using invasive urodynamic studies (UDS) in the management of women with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms using the results of the FUTURE trial. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe FUTURE study is the largest randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness of UDS with comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) in this patient population compared to CCA only. We developed an economic model that replicates the 24-month results of FUTURE, then models the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using long-term studies of treatment outcomes.
resultsOver the patient cohort's lifetime the UDS plus CCA group is £1380 more costly and is associated with 0.002 fewer QALYs than the CCA only group, with only a 23.4% chance of being cost-effective at £20 000 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results are robust to all changes except for the use of parameters based on the complete case analysis of the FUTURE trial. For the subgroup of patients with an initial diagnosis of mixed urinary incontinence, the UDS group gains more QALYs than the CCA group, albeit at a higher cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for UDS is £26 462, with a probability of being cost-effective of 45.3% at £20 000 per QALY gained and 53.8% at £30 000 per QALY gained.
conclusionThe use of UDS in women with a diagnosis of OAB and whose condition is refractory to initial medical and conservative treatments is unlikely to be cost-effective when examined from a UK perspective and with a lifetime horizon. Despite having access to the FUTURE study data, the parameterisation of the model is limited by the current evidence base. An ongoing long-term follow-up study will help reduce these uncertainties.
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.