PMC5399419

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement than sacral neuromodulation in OAB symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6, mean difference 8.1, p=.002), treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8, mean difference 7.8

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 8.1 on OAB-q SF symptom bother; CI: 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14

OnabotulinumtoxinA 200 U produced a greater 6-month mean reduction in daily urgency incontinence episodes than sacral neuromodulation (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.1

Effect: improvement; mean difference, 0.63 episodes per day; CI: 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14