ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2026
A Review of the Etiopathology of Phenotypes in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome.
Review in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: mechanisms, evidence, and translational perspectives-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Etiology of Hunner Lesions: Linking Immune Dysregulation and Chronic Inflammation in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Different Bladder Monotherapies Versus Multimodal Therapy in Patients with Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Psychological and Behavioral Contributors to Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Trauma, Stress, and Neurobiological Pathways.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 2026Review
- The value of a non-invasive bladder sensitivity paradigm in chronic pelvic pain.Reproduction & fertility · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this manuscript was to provide a narrative review of the etiopathology of three different interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) phenotypes: Hunner lesion, widespread pain, and low bladder capacity.
methodsIC/BPS literature was reviewed by the authors specific to the three phenotypes, focusing on etiopathology. Evidence was condensed and summarized on the different causes of each phenotype, emphasizing papers and abstracts dealing with basic science research, symptoms, and treatment options for patients afflicted with the three different IC/BPS phenotypes.
resultsHunner lesion patients are marked by a distinct, visible inflammatory lesion in the bladder, inflammatory serum and urinary biomarkers, and respond well to bladder-centric treatments targeted specifically at the Hunner lesions. Widespread pain patients have diffuse pain attributed to central nervous system changes manifesting in the bladder, often with co-occurring non-bladder chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia and seem to respond better to systemic therapies. Low bladder capacity patients have a marked decrease in anesthetic bladder capacity during therapeutic hydrodistension of the bladder. They also tend to have higher pain scores, symptoms specifically concentrated at the bladder, and respond to localized treatments, constituting another bladder centric phenotype.
conclusionsIC/BPS should not be thought to represent one unique type or pathophysiology, but rather a diverse group of patients, each with their own etiopathology and phenotypic manifestations. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis was a narrative review and did not involve any direct intervention on patients nor direct patient contact and was not a clinical trial.
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.