↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anticholinergics for urinary symptoms in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Anticholinergics for urinary symptoms in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004193.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard S Nicholas, Tim Friede, Sally Hollis, Carolyn A Young

Abstract

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is the commonest physically disabling chronic neurological disease affecting young people. Urinary symptoms are present in about 68% of people with MS but their basis has a number of potential aetiologies that can change with time. To assess the absolute and comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of anticholinergic agents in MS patients. We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2008), EMBASE (January 1974 to January 2008), supplemented with search of reference lists, personal communication with authors and relevant drug manufacturers. Randomised trials and cross-over trials (blinded and unblinded) that are either placebo-controlled or comparing two or more treatments. All four review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Our search strategy identified 33 articles of which thirty were excluded. Three single centre trials were included. No details were given regarding randomisation and blinding in the first two trials but side effects were frequent with all treatments.The first (Hebjorn 1977) was a double blind randomised crossover trial. Thirty four persons with MS received three drugs Methantheline Bromide, Flavoxate Chloride and Meladrazine Tartrate each for 14 days, washout periods were not mentioned. Median volume measurements at the first bladder contraction were statistically significant at a 5% level for Methantheline Bromide only compared to no treatment.The second (Gajewski 1986) was a prospective parallel group randomised study. Thirty four persons with MS were treated for 6-8 weeks with Oxybutynin (19 subjects) or Propantheline (15 subjects). For frequency, nocturia, urgency, and urge incontinence differences in symptom grade in favour of Oxybutynin were found. However, only for frequency the difference was statistically significant at 5% level.The third (Fader 2007) was a double blind crossover trial. Sixty four persons with MS received oral Oxybutynin or intravesical Atropine for 14 days. Details of randomisation and blinding were given. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in any efficacy outcome measure. Side effects and QOL scores showed significant differences in favour of atropine. From the available evidence we cannot advocate the use of anticholinergics in MS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 20 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,554
of 281,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#234
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.