Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Systematic review and meta-analysis: do clinical trials testing antimuscarinic agents for overactive bladder adequately measure central nervous system adverse events?

Author: GouPauline, PaquetteAmélie, TannenbaumCara

Meta-AnalysisA statistical technique that integrates the results of multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about a particular issue.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
ReviewAn article that critically examines existing research on a particular topic and summarizes the current state of knowledge in the field.
Systematic ReviewA review that systematically collects, evaluates, and integrates relevant research to answer a specific research question.

Overview

Antimuscarinic drugs are used to treat overactive bladder. While studies in healthy volunteers suggest that these drugs may cause cognitive impairment, clinical trials in patients with overactive bladder only report rare central nervous system (CNS) side effects. This discrepancy may be explained by a lack of systematic measurement and reporting of CNS outcomes in clinical trials. This review and meta-analysis found that 77% of eligible trials did not measure or report CNS outcomes. Dizziness was the most commonly reported side effect, with confusion reported in less than 1% of cases.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
Experimental studies in healthy volunteers suggest that some antimuscarinic agents confer a risk of cognitive impairment, yet clinical trials of people with overactive bladder report only rare central nervous system (CNS) side effects. A lack of systematic measurement and reporting of CNS outcomes i...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03473.x

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

The Quest for Accurate Reporting of CNS Side Effects in Overactive Bladder Treatment

The search for effective treatments for overactive bladder is a journey with many twists and turns. This systematic review and meta-analysis explore the reporting bias associated with central nervous system (CNS) adverse events in clinical trials of antimuscarinic agents for overactive bladder. The researchers found that a lack of systematic measurement and reporting of CNS outcomes in clinical trials might be contributing to the discrepancy between experimental studies and clinical trials in reporting CNS side effects. They emphasize the need for more detailed and standardized measurement of age-stratified CNS outcomes to better inform patients and clinicians about potential risks.

Navigating the Reporting Gap

This review highlights a critical gap in the reporting of CNS adverse events in clinical trials of antimuscarinic agents. This gap hinders our ability to fully understand the potential risks associated with these medications. The study's findings underscore the need for improved research practices to ensure comprehensive and accurate information for patients and healthcare providers.

Making Informed Decisions about Overactive Bladder Treatment

The findings of this study emphasize the importance of carefully discussing potential CNS side effects with your doctor when considering antimuscarinic agents for overactive bladder. It's crucial to be aware of the potential risks and benefits of any medication to make informed decisions about your treatment plan.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This review takes us on a journey through the world of overactive bladder treatment, uncovering the challenges and limitations in reporting CNS side effects. The findings are a reminder that the desert of research needs clear signposts to ensure reliable information and better guide patient care.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 2011-09-08
  2. Date Revised 2018-12-01
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

21718264

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03473.x

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.