Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 635

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Behavioral vs Drug Treatment for Urge Urinary Incontinence in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Burgio, Kathryn L., Locher, Julie L., Goode, Patricia S., Hardin, J. Michael, McDowell, B. Joan, Dombrowski, Marianne, Candib, Dorothy·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Urinary incontinence is a common condition caused by many factors with several treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of biofeedback-assisted behavioral treatment with drug treatment and a placebo control condition for the treatment of urge and mixed urinary incontinence in older community-dwelling women. DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1989 to 1995. SETTING: University-based outpatient geriatric medicine clinic. PATIENTS: A volunteer sample of 197 women aged 55 to 92 years with urge urinary incontinence or mixed incontinence with urge as the predominant pattern. Subjects had to have urodynamic evidence of bladder dysfunction, be ambulatory, and not have dementia. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to 4 sessions (8 weeks) of biofeedback-assisted behavioral treatment, drug treatment (with oxybutynin chloride, possible range of doses, 2.5 mg daily to 5.0 mg 3 times daily), or a placebo control condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reduction in the frequency of incontinent episodes as determined by bladder diaries, and patients' perceptions of improvement and their comfort and satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: For all 3 treatment groups, reduction of incontinence was most pronounced early in treatment and progressed more gradually thereafter. Behavioral treatment, which yielded a mean 80.7% reduction of incontinence episodes, was significantly more effective than drug treatment (mean 68.5% reduction; P=.04) and both were more effective than the placebo control condition (mean 39.4% reduction; P<.001 and P=.009, respectively). Patient-perceived improvement was greatest for behavioral treatment (74.1% "much better" vs 50.9% and 26.9% for drug treatment and placebo, respectively). Only 14.0% of patients receiving behavioral treatment wanted to change to another treatment vs 75.5% in each of the other groups. CONCLUSION: Behavioral treatment is a safe and effective conservative intervention that should be made more readily available to patients as a first-line treatment for urge and mixed incontinence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.23.1995

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 635

Metadata

Authors
Burgio, K. L., Locher, J. L., Goode, P. S., Hardin, J. M., McDowell, B. J., Dombrowski, M., & Candib, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-12-16
Volume
280
Issue
23
Pages
1995
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2171846085
Cited by
635
References
1
FWCI
32.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Behavioral vs Drug Treatment for Urge Urinary Incontinence in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.280.23.1995
The paper
Burgio, K. L., Locher, J. L., Goode, P. S., Hardin, J. M., McDowell, B. J., Dombrowski, M., & Candib, D. (1998). Behavioral vs Drug Treatment for Urge Urinary Incontinence in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.23.1995

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.