ReviewNature reviews. Urology2025
Antibiotic therapy for treating overactive bladder is not supported by clinical evidence.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
A number of reports have suggested that the use of prolonged antibiotic treatment could be an effective therapy for patients with overactive bladder (OAB); however, this approach is contrary to existing recommendations regarding the prolonged non-specific use of antibiotics. The existing evidence in this area seems to be circumstantial and anecdotal but, despite this limitation, the use of long-term antibiotic therapy for OAB seems to be increasing. Review and synthesis of the existing evidence for use of antibiotic therapy in patients with OAB identify few studies - just seven papers and four conference proceedings - which are heterogeneous in their design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, treatment regimen employed, approach to the use of antimuscarinic medications, follow-up protocols, and measured outcomes. Overall, the limitation of these published data, the potential adverse events associated with long-term antibiotic use, concerns about antimicrobial resistance and the wide availability of other conventional treatments mean that no compelling data support the routine use of antibiotic therapy and that antibiotic treatment of OAB is not supported by an adequate contemporary evidence base. In the absence of acute urinary tract infection, the management of the non-specific syndrome of OAB should follow existing evidence-based investigational and treatment guidelines. Contemporary therapy following attention to fluid intake relies upon anticholinergic or β3-adrenergic agonist treatment with progression to intravesical onabotulinumtoxinA therapy or neuromodulation in non-responders to oral therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39747702What 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.