Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility and efficacy of bladder training for troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in Parkinson disease (PD).MethodsIn this single-center, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, participants with a history of PD and LUTS were randomized to a 12-week bladder training program (BT) or conservative advice (CA). Outcome measures included a 3-day volume frequency diary, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ)-Overactive Bladder Module, and ICIQ-Quality of Life Module. Co-primary endpoints were (1) patient perception of change and (2) change in number of urgency episodes at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included change in ICIQ scores, number of micturitions, and volume voided.ResultsThirty-eight participants were randomized (18 to CA, 20 to BT). Both CA and BT were associated with significant improvements in volume voided, number of micturitions, symptom severity scores, and measures of quality of life (all p p = 0.001), significantly greater reductions in number of voids in 24 hours (mean decrease 2.3 ± 0.8 voids vs 0.3 ± 0.5 [p p p NS]). At 20 weeks, BT remained associated with greater improvement in interference in daily life. Loss of significance in other measures may reflect loss of power from loss to follow-up.ConclusionThis controlled trial demonstrated the potential benefits of BT for LUTS in PD.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD and LUTS, BT significantly increased patient perception of improvement but did not significantly reduce urgency episodes.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.