Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.

<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin alone in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB).<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-seven female outpatients with OAB were screened for this d...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Yumeng Zhang, Shaoyong Wang, Shulu Zu, Chanjuan Zhang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/945636cf46004b749ecbe6d06f3d134e
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:945636cf46004b749ecbe6d06f3d134e
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:945636cf46004b749ecbe6d06f3d134e2021-12-02T20:10:13ZTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0253040https://doaj.org/article/945636cf46004b749ecbe6d06f3d134e2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253040https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin alone in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB).<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-seven female outpatients with OAB were screened for this double-blind randomized controlled study. Eighty-six patients who met our inclusion criteria were divided randomly into two groups. In group A (43 patients), patients received oral solifenacin and "fake" TENS on the foot; in group B (43 patients), patients received oral solifenacin and effective TENS on the foot. Improvements in OAB symptoms were assessed by Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS), Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q), voiding diaries and urodynamic tests. 70 of 86 patients (36 in group A, 34 in group B) completed the 2 months of treatment and 3 months of follow-up.<h4>Results</h4>Statistically, the maximum bladder volume and OAB symptoms of both groups improved significantly after treatment. The improvement in group B was significantly better than that in group A, as indicated by the maximum bladder volume, OAB-q score and voiding diary. Some mild adverse effects were observed, including dry mouth, stomach upset, constipation, muscle pain and local paresthesia.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The combination of TENS and solifenacin was more effective in improving OAB symptoms than solifenacin alone.Yumeng ZhangShaoyong WangShulu ZuChanjuan ZhangPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 6, p e0253040 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Yumeng Zhang Shaoyong Wang Shulu Zu Chanjuan Zhang Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
description	<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin alone in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB).<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-seven female outpatients with OAB were screened for this double-blind randomized controlled study. Eighty-six patients who met our inclusion criteria were divided randomly into two groups. In group A (43 patients), patients received oral solifenacin and "fake" TENS on the foot; in group B (43 patients), patients received oral solifenacin and effective TENS on the foot. Improvements in OAB symptoms were assessed by Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS), Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q), voiding diaries and urodynamic tests. 70 of 86 patients (36 in group A, 34 in group B) completed the 2 months of treatment and 3 months of follow-up.<h4>Results</h4>Statistically, the maximum bladder volume and OAB symptoms of both groups improved significantly after treatment. The improvement in group B was significantly better than that in group A, as indicated by the maximum bladder volume, OAB-q score and voiding diary. Some mild adverse effects were observed, including dry mouth, stomach upset, constipation, muscle pain and local paresthesia.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The combination of TENS and solifenacin was more effective in improving OAB symptoms than solifenacin alone.
format	article
author	Yumeng Zhang Shaoyong Wang Shulu Zu Chanjuan Zhang
author_facet	Yumeng Zhang Shaoyong Wang Shulu Zu Chanjuan Zhang
author_sort	Yumeng Zhang
title	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
title_short	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
title_full	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
title_fullStr	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
title_full_unstemmed	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.
title_sort	transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: a double-blind randomized controlled study.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/945636cf46004b749ecbe6d06f3d134e
work_keys_str_mv	AT yumengzhang transcutaneouselectricalnervestimulationandsolifenacinsuccinateversussolifenacinsuccinatealonefortreatmentofoveractivebladdersyndromeadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT shaoyongwang transcutaneouselectricalnervestimulationandsolifenacinsuccinateversussolifenacinsuccinatealonefortreatmentofoveractivebladdersyndromeadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT shuluzu transcutaneouselectricalnervestimulationandsolifenacinsuccinateversussolifenacinsuccinatealonefortreatmentofoveractivebladdersyndromeadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT chanjuanzhang transcutaneouselectricalnervestimulationandsolifenacinsuccinateversussolifenacinsuccinatealonefortreatmentofoveractivebladdersyndromeadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledstudy
_version_	1718375012482678784

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and solifenacin succinate versus solifenacin succinate alone for treatment of overactive bladder syndrome: A double-blind randomized controlled study.

Ejemplares similares