Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2022
A mobile app for the treatment of female mixed and urgency incontinence: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Sweden.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic Evaluation Associated With Clinical-Grade Mobile App-Based Digital Therapeutic Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- The effect of bladder training with mobile application on quality of life and sexual satisfaction in women with overactive bladder: randomized controlled study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Digital Health Interventions Incorporating Behavior Change Techniques and Gamification for Bladder Health in Adults Aged 50 Years and Older: Rapid Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- An Overview on Methods, Evidence, and Study Quality of Health Economic Evaluation Studies for Independently Usable Digital Health Apps: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisA previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that the app Tät II, for self-management of mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), yielded significant, clinically relevant improvements in symptom severity and quality of life (QoL) compared with a control group. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Tät II.
methodsA cost-utility analysis with a 1-year societal perspective was carried out, comparing Tät II with an information app. Data were collected alongside an RCT: 122 community-dwelling women aged ≥18 years with MUI or UUI ≥2 times/week were randomized to 3 months of Tät II treatment focused on pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and bladder training (BT; n = 60), or to an information app (n = 62). Self-assessed data from validated questionnaires were collected at baseline and at 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. Costs for assessment, treatment delivery, incontinence aids, laundry, and time for PFMT and BT were included. We calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was our primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe mean age was 58.3 (SD = 9.6) years. Annual overall costs were €738.42 in the treatment group and €605.82 in the control group; annual QALY gains were 0.0152 and 0.0037 respectively. The base case ICER was €11,770.52; ICERs in the sensitivity analyses ranged from €-9,303.78 to €22,307.67.
conclusionsThe app Tät II is a cost-effective treatment method for women with MUI and UUI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.