ArticleUrology research & practice2026
Efficacy and Safety of Mirabegron 25 mg Versus Oral Desmopressin 120 mcg in Treatment of Primary Nocturnal Enuresis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mirabegron in the management of primary nocturnal enuresis.
methodsThis prospective, randomized controlled study included 150 patients randomized into 2 equal groups: desmopressin and mirabegron. All patients underwent evaluation over a 6-month period, with assessments conducted at the end of each month. Evaluations included the frequency of wet nights per month, clinical outcomes, the percentage reduction in wet nights during treatment, and relapse following treatment. The side effects of the drugs in the studied groups were also recorded.
resultsAt 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months, the mirabegron group showed a significant increase in median percentage reduction in wet nights from baseline compared with the desmopressin group. Furthermore, there was a significant improvement in clinical outcomes for the mirabegron group compared to the desmopressin group (P < .01*). At the 1-month follow-up after treatment, 10.7% of patients in the mirabegron group had a relapse, whereas the relapse rate in the desmopressin group was 22.7%, indicating a statistically significant difference (P = .049*); the relative risk of relapse with mirabegron was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22-1.02). The mirabegron group exhibited a significant increase in maximum bladder capacity (MBC) (270.8 ± 73.80) compared to the desmopressin group (230.933 ± 67.35; P < .001). Both groups exhibited a statistically significant increase in MBC posttreatment compared with pretreatment (P < .001*). No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups regarding any of the reported side effects.
conclusionMirabegron is an effective treatment for nocturnal enuresis, with better outcomes, fewer relapses, and tolerable side effects. Cite this article as: Abo-Elnasr HA, Alhefnawy MA, Farag M, El Gharably MA. Efficacy and safety of mirabegron 25 mg versus oral desmopressin 120 mcg in treatment of primary nocturnal enuresis. Urol Res Pract. 2026, 52, 0009, doi: 10.5152/ tud.2026.26009.
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.