SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2016
Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin injection for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic and therapeutic cystoscopy in bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis: systematic review of literature and consensus on methodology.International urogynecology journal · 2023Pooled it
- An indirect comparison meta-analysis of noninvasive intravesical instillation and intravesical injection of botulinum toxin-A in bladder disorders.International urology and nephrology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clustering of Urinary Biomarkers to Identify Interstitial Cystitis Subtypes and Different Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Approach to Recurrent Voiding Dysfunction, Dysuria, and Pelvic Pain Persisting for at Least 3 Months.International neurourology journal · 2022Article
- Review
- Understanding bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- An update on treatment options for interstitial cystitis.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2020Review
- Botulinum toxin for chronic pelvic pain in women with endometriosis: a cohort study of a pain-focused treatment.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2019Article
- Intravesical treatment for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome: a network meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
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
purposeTo investigate the overall treatment efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) injections compared with placebo in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE on BoNTA use in IC/BPS. Outcome measures included changes of OLS, ICSI, ICPI, VAS, frequency, nocturia, FBC, Qmax, and PVR from baseline and also included adverse events.
resultsA total of five studies were included, with a total sample size of 252 subjects (133 subjects in the experimental group and 119 subjects in the control group). The duration of follow-up ranged from 8 to 12 weeks. The BoNTA dosage was from 50 to 200 U. The pooled overall SMD in the mean change of VAS for the BoNTA group versus the placebo group was -0.49 (95 % CI -0.74, -0.23). There were also significant improvements in ICPI and frequency. The other outcomes (ICSI, nocturia, Qmax, and FBC) were not statistically different between the two groups.
conclusionAlthough BoNTA is not regulatory approved indication, this first evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis of BoNTA injection for IC/BPS showed significant differences in efficacy of treatment compared with placebo, especially for pain control, and also showed no differences in the rate of procedure-related adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27139498What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.