ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Second- and third-line treatment options for refractory monosymptomatic enuresis in children: a scoping review.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Around one-third of patients with monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis (MNE) do not respond to conventional first-line treatments. Although international guidelines outline second- and third-line treatment options, these recommendations may not fully address the needs of every case encountered in daily practice. Therefore, the question of which treatment strategy should be used for refractory cases remains unanswered. We conducted a scoping review (PROSPERO CRD420251171197) following PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), searching the PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases to identify all published reports of treatment for refractory MNE in paediatric patients up to March 2026. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective observational cohort studies written in English. The primary outcome was the number of wet nights (classified as complete, partial or no response according to the ICCS criteria). Secondary outcomes included a comparison of the efficacy of second- and third-line treatment options if enough data could be found. The Cochrane RoB 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized clinical trials, and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used for non-randomized cohort studies. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 17 out of 2578 articles met the PICO inclusion criteria. The included studies enrolled a total of 1348 children and adolescents with mean ages ranging from approximately 8 to 17 years. Many of the second- or third-line treatments described in the literature were excluded due to incorrect methodology, study design or patient population. The results showed that, following first-line treatment, a combination of biofeedback, electrical nerve stimulations, anticholinergics (e.g. oxybutynin, tolterodine, solifenacin), β3-adrenoceptor agonists (e.g. vibegron), tricyclic antidepressants (e.g. imipramine) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (e.g. fluoxetine) improved both partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) at varying rates across highly heterogeneous interventions and study populations. However, the evidence does not strongly support a treatment algorithm. Furthermore, reports on electro-acupuncture, furosemide, onabotulinumtoxin A injections or the herbal medicine 'shokenchuto' were considered unreliable for pure refractory MNE, despite improvements in PR and CR occurring at different rates. Conclusion: The question of which treatment strategy should be used for refractory cases remains unanswered due to a lack of sufficiently unbiased, prospective, randomized, controlled studies involving long-term follow-up. Some second- and third-line treatment options may improve PR and CR rates, despite the limited available evidence to support a treatment algorithm. However, further research is needed to confirm these benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472999What 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.