Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Sham Efficacy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome: Results From the SUmiT Trial

Peters, Kenneth M., Carrico, Donna J., Perez-Marrero, Ramon A., Khan, Ansar U., Wooldridge, Leslie S., Davis, Gregory L., MacDiarmid, Scott A.·2010·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Study of Urgent PC vs Sham Effectiveness in Treatment of Overactive Bladder Symptoms (SUmiT) was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation to sham through 12 weeks of therapy. The improvement in global response assessment, voiding diary parameters, and overactive bladder and quality of life questionnaires was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 220 adults with overactive bladder symptoms were randomized 1:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with weekly percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation or sham therapy. Overactive bladder and quality of life questionnaires as well as 3-day voiding diaries were completed at baseline and at 13 weeks. Subject global response assessments were completed at week 13. RESULTS: The 13-week subject global response assessment for overall bladder symptoms demonstrated that percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation subjects achieved statistically significant improvement in bladder symptoms with 54.5% reporting moderately or markedly improved responses compared to 20.9% of sham subjects from baseline (p <0.001). All individual global response assessment subset symptom components demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline to 13 weeks for percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation compared to sham. Voiding diary parameters after 12 weeks of therapy showed percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation subjects had statistically significant improvements in frequency, nighttime voids, voids with moderate to severe urgency and urinary urge incontinence episodes compared to sham. No serious device related adverse events or malfunctions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This pivotal multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham controlled trial provides level I evidence that percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation therapy is safe and effective in treating overactive bladder symptoms. The compelling efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation demonstrated in this trial is consistent with other recently published reports and supports the use of peripheral neuromodulation 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.2009.12.036

Cites

20 of 20 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 20 references

Cited by

See all 489

Metadata

Authors
Peters, K. M., Carrico, D. J., Perez-Marrero, R. A., Khan, A. U., Wooldridge, L. S., Davis, G. L., & MacDiarmid, S. A.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2010-04
Volume
183
Issue
4
Pages
1438-1443
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2154268224
Cited by
489
References
20
FWCI
45.07
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 Sham Efficacy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome: Results From the SUmiT Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.036
The paper
Peters, K. M., Carrico, D. J., Perez-Marrero, R. A., Khan, A. U., Wooldridge, L. S., Davis, G. L., & MacDiarmid, S. A. (2010). Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Sham Efficacy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome: Results From the SUmiT Trial. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.036

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.