Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25157339›Full record

ReviewResearch and reports in urology2014

OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of overactive bladder.

Lindsey Cox, Anne P Cameron

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research and reports in urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06437899 (Evaluation of Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction Using Local Anaesthesia Versus Sedoanalgesia for Intradetrusor Botulinum-Toxin A Injection for the Treatment of Idiopathic Overactive Bladder), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06437899 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction Using Local Anaesthesia Versus Sedoanalgesia for Intradetrusor Botulinum-Toxin A Injection for the Treatment of Idiopathic Overactive Bladder: a Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital LKH Hochsteiermark - LeobenRan2023 to 2027Enrolled84ConditionsOveractive BladderArmsintravesical botulinum toxin A injection unter local anaesthesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of Two Treatment Modalities in Overactive Bladder: A Rapid Overview.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder is effective and safe for repeated use.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Symptomatic management in multiple sclerosis.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lindsey CoxDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Anne P CameronDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OnabotulinumtoxinA injection is a safe and effective treatment for adults with refractory overactive bladder. There is sufficient level 1 evidence to support offering onabotulinumtoxinA injections as a second-line treatment to patients who have failed behavioral therapy and oral medications such as antimuscarinics and β3 agonists. An intradetrusor injection of 100 U of onabotulinumtoxinA is likely the optimal dose to balance risks and benefits, and this is the dose approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Improvement in urgency urinary incontinence episodes, as well as symptom scores and quality of life, were seen in around 60%-65% of patients, and were significantly improved compared with those on placebo. Most studies have reported a duration of symptom relief ranging from 6 to 12 months, with repeat injections being safe and efficacious. Overall, the risk of urinary retention was around 6% across the study populations.

Indexed as

frequencynocturiaurgency urinary incontinenceurinary retention

Identifiers

PMID25157339
PMCPMC4114914
OpenAlexW2129352247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.