Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2025
Efficacy and safety of intradetrusor abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA in women with overactive bladder and the value of local anesthesia: a randomized clinical study.
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA non-inferiority clinical study evaluated the efficacy and safety of abobotulinumtoxinA vs. incobotulinumtoxinA intradetrusor injections in women with overactive bladder and urge urinary incontinence. Also, the effect of local anesthesia on the pain level of the procedure was assessed.
methodsPatients were randomized to receive 20 intradetrusor injections of either 300 U abobotulinumtoxinA or 100 U incobotulinumtoxinA. They were further randomized to receive either local anesthesia (40 ml 1% lidocaine solution) or placebo before botulinum toxin injection. Before the procedure and 4 months after the procedure each patient reported urinary incontinence episodes, frequency, nocturia, completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) score, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7), and Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaire. Each patient completed a patient satisfaction survey 4 months after the procedure. During the procedure, the patients graded the pain intensity of every injection on a visual analog scale (VAS). The total score of each questionnaire was considered.
resultsA total of 54 patients with a mean age of 66 ± 13 (SD) years completed the study. Total scores of UDI‑6, IIQ‑7, I‑QOL, patient satisfaction, urinary incontinence episodes, frequency, nocturia and VAS questionnaires did not show differences between the abobotulinumtoxinA (n = 26) or incobotulinumtoxinA (n = 28) group. Urinary retention requiring catheterization was noted in five patients. The VAS and patient satisfaction questionnaire values did not show significant differences between the group receiving bladder instillation with lidocaine solution (n = 28) or the group receiving placebo (n = 26).
conclusionIn women with overactive bladder and urge urinary incontinence where conservative treatment failed, abobotulinumtoxinA vs. incobotulinumtoxinA intradetrusor injections showed comparable results regarding improved clinical outcome and patient satisfaction. Local anesthesia before the procedure did not reduce the pain level in comparison with the placebo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.