ReviewThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Botulinum toxin A in idiopathic overactive bladder: a narrative review of 5410 cases.
Review in The Canadian journal of urology, 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.
- Comparison of Different Treatment Outcomes for Refractory Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Toxins · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes and Retreatment Pathways Following Intradetrusor OnabotulinumtoxinA in Women with Refractory Idiopathic Overactive Bladder.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
introductionWhen conservative treatments fail, botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is an option for refractory idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). This review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and predictive factors for BoNT-A in this situation. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search up to January 2025 was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase to assess efficacy, safety, and predictors of adverse events (AE) related to BoNT-A. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies. The quality of the review was evaluated based on the Oxford criteria, following the Strengthening the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guidelines, and by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews.
results31 studies were included, involving 5410 patients. BoNT-A improves OAB symptoms even after reinjections. Higher doses do not enhance efficacy but increase AE. AE includes high post-void residual (PVR), clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC), and Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). Predictors of CISC include age, male gender, hysterectomy, ≥3 vaginal deliveries, mixed incontinence, prior mid-urethral sling (MUS), high PVR, low Pressure at Pdet at First Micturition (PIP1) in women, low Bladder Compliance Index (BCI) in men, and high Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index (BOOI). Diabetes and heart failure increase PVR. UTIs are more frequent in women and men with benign prostatic hyperplasia, with CISC increasing the risk fivefold. Severe complications are rare. Predictors of poor response include male gender, high BOOI, low urinary flow, and diabetes. DISCUSSION: BoNT-A is effective for OAB, especially for incontinence. AE is dose-dependent and limits treatment adherence. Their link with poor response remains unclear.
conclusionBoNT-A effectively treats refractory idiopathic OAB, improving symptoms and quality of life with repeated injections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40567082What 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.