ArticleCureus2025
Intravesical Botulinum Toxin Type A for an Overactive Bladder: A Single-Center Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Intravesical administration of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is an established third-line intervention for patients with refractory overactive bladder (OAB). With BoNT-A therapy now widely adopted, ongoing audits remain important to capture real-world outcomes across different patient groups. This retrospective audit assessed the clinical outcomes of BoNT-A therapy in a heterogeneous patient population treated at a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Methodology We conducted a retrospective audit of 193 patients who received intravesical BoNT-A injections for OAB between January and December 2024. Patients underwent urodynamic testing to confirm diagnosis, and all cases were discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings where approval was given for BoNT-A treatment. Demographic data, treatment parameters, efficacy outcomes, adverse events, and catheterization requirements were systematically analyzed. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests to evaluate associations between variables. Results The cohort included 164 (85%) females and 29 (15%) males, with a median age of 62 years. The primary indications for BoNT-A therapy were idiopathic detrusor overactivity (IDO, n = 149, 77.2%), neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO, n = 41, 21.2%), and sensory urgency (n = 3, 1.6%). Treatment success was observed in 82.4% (n = 159) of patients, with partial improvement in 4.1% (n = 8) and treatment failure in 11.9% (n = 23). The overall urinary tract infection (UTI) rate was 4.7% (n = 9), with diabetic patients exhibiting a three-fold increased risk (11.5% vs. 3.6%), but this did not reach statistical significance (χ² = 3.195, df = 1, p = 0.074; Fisher's p = 0.105). Post-treatment catheterization was required in 29.5% (n = 57) of cases, predominantly among patients with NDO (n = 22, 53.7% vs. IDO, n=37, 25%). First-time BoNT-A administration occurred in 21.7% (n = 42) of patients, while the majority (n = 151, 78.3%) received repeat injections during the study period, with a mean of seven treatment cycles. The median duration of effect following intravesical BoNT‑A was six months (interquartile range = 5). The mean duration was 6.7 ± 4.0 months. Conclusions Intravesical BoNT-A demonstrates robust efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in the management of refractory OAB, with sustained therapeutic benefits necessitating repeat administration. Diabetic status may predispose patients to an increased risk of post-procedural UTIs, while those with NDO are more likely to require catheterization. These findings support BoNT-A as a valuable therapeutic option in the stepwise management of OAB, particularly when combined with appropriate patient selection and counseling.
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.