ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2026
Comment on "evaluation of the prevalence of overactive bladder syndrome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis".
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We read with interest the study by Cirakoglu and Yuce on overactive bladder (OAB) and central sensitization (CS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. While the study provides valuable hypothesis‑generating insights, several methodological limitations warrant consideration. The OAB-V8 cut‑off of 8 was validated in a primary care population, not in RA patients, and dichotomising this ordinal scale discards information and reduces statistical power. The regression model included correlated variables (HAQ-DI, VAS-pain, DAS-28) without testing for multicollinearity, which can inflate standard errors and produce unreliable p‑values. Additionally, the authors did not verify key logistic regression assumptions, including linearity of continuous variables with the logit and absence of influential outliers. These limitations suggest that the findings should be interpreted as hypothesis‑generating rather than definitive. Future studies should address these methodological issues to clarify the relationship between CS and OAB in RA.
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.