↓ Skip to main content

Considering benefits and harms of duloxetine for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of clinical study reports

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Considering benefits and harms of duloxetine for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of clinical study reports
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, November 2016
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.151104
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Maund, Louise Schow Guski, Peter C. Gøtzsche

Abstract

The European Medicines Agency makes clinical study reports publicly available and publishes reasons for not approving applications for marketing authorization. Duloxetine has been approved in Europe for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. The reported adverse effects of duloxetine include mental health problems and suicidality. We obtained clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency concerning use of this drug for stress urinary incontinence. We performed a meta-analysis of 4 randomized placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (involving a total of 1913 patients) submitted to the European Medicines Agency for marketing approval for the indication of stress urinary incontinence in women. We used data from the clinical study reports (totalling 6870 pages and including individual patient data) to assess benefits (including frequency of incontinence and changes in quality-of-life scores, such as Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating) and harms (both general harms, including discontinuation because of adverse events, and harms related to suicidality, violent behaviour and their potential precursors, such as akathisia and activation [stimulating effects such as insomnia, anxiety and agitation]). Duloxetine was significantly better than placebo in terms of percentage change in weekly incontinence episodes (mean difference -13.56%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -21.59% to -5.53%) and change in Incontinence Quality of Life total score (mean difference 3.24, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.48). However, the effect sizes were small, and a sensitivity analysis (with removal of one trial) showed that the number needed to treat for a Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating of "much better or very much better" was 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). The numbers needed to harm were 7 (95% CI 6 to 8) for discontinuing because of an adverse event and 7 (95% CI 6 to 9) for experiencing an activation event. No suicidality, violence or akathisia events were noted. Although duloxetine is effective for stress urinary incontinence in women, the rates of associated harm were high when individual patient data were analyzed, and the harms outweighed the benefits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 X users 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 38 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 28%
Psychology 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 40 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. 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 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#273,844
of 25,899,121 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#490
of 9,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,072
of 314,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#10
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,899,121 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 314,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.