ArticleUrology research & practice2026
Efficacy of D-Mannose Monotherapy vs. Other Agents in Preventing Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) are common and often difficult to manage among women and are frequently treated with antibiotic prophylaxis. However, growing awareness of antibiotic resistance has encouraged interest in non-antibiotic alternatives such as D-mannose, a naturally occurring sugar believed to prevent rUTIs by inhibiting bacterial adhesion to the urothelial surface. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of D-mannose monotherapy in preventing rUTIs in adult women compared with antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature searches were performed using PubMed and EMBASE. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or cohort studies evaluating D-mannose monotherapy for rUTIs prevention in adult women. The primary outcome was UTI recurrence, and the secondary outcome was adverse effects. Five studies met the inclusion criteria (3 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 1 retrospective cohort), including 1038 women. A meta-analysis of 3 eligible studies comparing D-mannose to placebo/control (n = 831) demonstrated a non-significant reduction in rUTIs in the D-mannose group (risk ratio = 0.37, 95% CI 0.11-1.30, P = .10) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). The largest and highestquality study showed no significant difference between D-mannose and placebo. Across all included studies, D-mannose appears to be well tolerated, with only mild and infrequent side effects. Although D-mannose appears safe and well-tolerated, the current evidence does not support its routine use in the prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections. Further high-quality trials are necessary to clarify its effectiveness in clinical practice. Cite this article as: Hajjaj AA, Maatoq AA, Asadi AA. Efficacy of D-mannose monotherapy vs. other agents in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Res Pract. 2025;51(6):208-216.
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.