Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Extended-Release Tolterodine: Results From the Overactive Bladder Innovative Therapy Trial

Peters, Kenneth M., MacDiarmid, Scott A., Wooldridge, Leslie S., Leong, Fah Che, Shobeiri, S. Abbas, Rovner, Eric S., Siegel, Steven W., Tate, Susan B., Jarnagin, Barry K., Rosenblatt, Peter L., Feagins, Brian A.·2009·Journal of Urology
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Overactive Bladder Innovative Therapy trial was a randomized, multicenter, controlled study that compared the effectiveness of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation to extended-release tolterodine. The reduction in overactive bladder symptoms along with global response assessments was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 adults with urinary frequency were randomized 1:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with weekly percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation or to 4 mg daily extended-release tolterodine. Voiding diaries and an overactive bladder questionnaire were completed at baseline and at the end of therapy to compare 24-hour voiding frequency, urinary urge incontinence episodes, voids causing waking, volume voided, urgency episodes and quality of life indices. Global response assessments were completed by subjects and investigators after 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: The global response assessment demonstrated that subject assessment of overactive bladder symptoms compared to baseline was statistically significant in the percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation arm with 79.5% reporting cure or improvement compared to 54.8% of subjects on tolterodine (p = 0.01). Assessments by investigators were similar but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.05). After 12 weeks of therapy objective measures improved similarly in both groups for reductions in urinary frequency, urge urinary incontinence episodes, urge severity and nighttime voids, as well as for improvement in voided volume. There were no serious adverse events or device malfunctions. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter, randomized trial demonstrates that percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation is safe with statistically significant improvements in patient assessment of overactive bladder symptoms, and with objective effectiveness comparable to that of pharmacotherapy. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation may be considered a clinically significant alternative therapy for overactive bladder.

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 · 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.045

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Peters, K. M., MacDiarmid, S. A., Wooldridge, L. S., Leong, F. C., Shobeiri, S. A., Rovner, E. S., Siegel, S. W., Tate, S. B., Jarnagin, B. K., Rosenblatt, P. L., & Feagins, B. A.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-09
Volume
182
Issue
3
Pages
1055-1061
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
DOI
10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.045
OpenAlex
W2072032461
Cited by
373
References
14
FWCI
32.09
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: Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Extended-Release Tolterodine: Results From the Overactive Bladder Innovative Therapy Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.045
The paper
Peters, K. M., MacDiarmid, S. A., Wooldridge, L. S., Leong, F. C., Shobeiri, S. A., Rovner, E. S., Siegel, S. W., Tate, S. B., Jarnagin, B. K., Rosenblatt, P. L., & Feagins, B. A. (2009). Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Extended-Release Tolterodine: Results From the Overactive Bladder Innovative Therapy Trial. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.045

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.