↓ Skip to main content

Long-term efficacy and safety of a combination of sabal and urtica extract for lower urinary tract symptoms—a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, June 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Long-term efficacy and safety of a combination of sabal and urtica extract for lower urinary tract symptoms—a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial
Published in
World Journal of Urology, June 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00345-005-0501-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Lopatkin, A. Sivkov, C. Walther, S. Schläfke, A. Medvedev, J. Avdeichuk, G. Golubev, K. Melnik, N. Elenberger, U. Engelmann

Abstract

The efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of 160 mg sabal fruit extract WS 1473 and 120 mg urtica root extract WS 1031 per capsule (PRO 160/120) was investigated in elderly, male patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia in a prospective multicenter trial. A total of 257 patients (129 and 128, respectively) were randomized to treatment with PRO 160/120 or placebo (127 and 126 were evaluable for efficacy). Following a single-blind placebo run-in phase of 2 weeks, the patients received 2 x 1 capsule/day of the study medication under double-blind conditions over a period of 24 weeks. Double-blind treatment was followed by an open control period of 24 weeks during which all patients were administered PRO 160/120. Outcome measures for treatment efficacy included the assessment of the patients' LUTS by means of the I-PSS self-rating questionnaire and a quality of life index as well as uroflow and sonographic parameters. Using the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), patients treated with PRO 160/120 exhibited a substantially higher total score reduction after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment than patients of the placebo group (6 points vs 4 points; P=0.003, one tailed) with a tendency in the same direction after 16 weeks. This applied to obstructive as well as to irritative symptoms, and to patients with moderate or severe symptoms at baseline. Patients randomized to placebo showed a marked improvement in LUTS (as measured by the I-PSS) after being switched to PRO 160/120 during the control period (P=0.01, one tailed, in comparison to those who had been treated with PRO 160/120 in the double-blind phase). The tolerability of PRO 160/120 was comparable to the placebo. In conclusion, PRO 160/120 was clearly superior to the placebo for the amelioration of LUTS as measured by the I-PSS. PRO 160/120 is advantageous in obstructive and irritative urinary symptoms and in patients with moderate and severe symptoms. The tolerability of the herbal extract was excellent.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 19%
Unspecified 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2010.
All research outputs
#3,500,899
of 12,226,820 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#264
of 870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,346
of 270,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,226,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 870 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.