ArticleUrology2026
Determining a Real-world Definition of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Induction Therapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Overactive Bladder.
Article in Urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine real-world utilization of induction percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) among Medicare beneficiaries to determine a more realistic, population-specific definition of induction PTNS in older adults, given poor overall adherence with the standard induction PTNS schedule.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of a 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PTNS treatment for idiopathic OAB from 2015 to 2020. Histograms and sensitivity analyses were explored to yield an optimal definition of induction PTNS based on real-world utilization. An adjusted multivariable modified Poisson regression was then created to determine factors associated with completing this cohort-based definition.
resultsA total of 41,962 beneficiaries underwent induction PTNS. The histogram's mode and 75th percentile and sensitivity analyses yielded an induction PTNS schedule of 11 treatments in 15 weeks, completed by 32.6% of beneficiaries, compared to 7.9% completing the standard schedule. Beneficiaries who were older (≥85 years, aRR 0.92 vs 66-74 years), non-white race (aRR 0.90), more comorbid (CCI ≥4, aRR 0.80 vs CCI of 0), and more frail (aRR 0.93 vs not frail) were less likely to complete the cohort-based definition.
conclusionThis study determined a new definition for induction PTNS (11 sessions in 15 weeks), completed by 3 times as many beneficiaries as the standard schedule. These findings support a more realistic definition that can be used for future research on PTNS utilization in this population.
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.