| Title |
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of intravesical therapy for bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-015-2890-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jayanta M. Barua, Ignacio Arance, Javier C. Angulo, Claus R. Riedl |
| Abstract |
Bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) is a chronic disease characterised by persistent irritating micturition symptoms and pain. The objective was to compare the clinical efficacy of currently available products for intravesical therapy of BPS/IC and to assess their pharmacoeconomic impact. A Pubmed/Medline database search was performed for articles on intravesical therapy for BPS/IC. A total of 345 publications were identified, from which 326 were excluded. Statistical evaluation was performed with effect size (ES) assessment of symptom reduction and response rates. The final set of 19 articles on intravesical BPS/IC therapy included 5 prospective controlled trials (CTs), the remaining were classified as uncontrolled clinical studies. The total number of patients included was 801, 228 of whom had been evaluated in a CT. For CTs, the largest ES for symptom reduction as well as response rate was observed for high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMW-HA), with similar findings in two uncontrolled studies with HMW-HA. The number needed to treat to achieve a response to intravesical therapy was 2.67 for intravesical pentosan polysulphate and 1.31 for HMW-HA which were superior to all other instillates. HMW-HA was significantly superior in cost effectiveness and cost efficacy to all other instillation regimes. The present meta-analysis combined medical and pharmacoeconomic aspects and demonstrated an advantage of HMW-HA over other instillation agents; however, direct comparisons between the different products have not been performed to date in properly designed controlled studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 40% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2020.
All research outputs
#4,837,873
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#353
of 2,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,948
of 393,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.