ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Does Injection Number Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bladder Botox for Overactive Bladder.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisIntravesical onabotulinumtoxin-A (BoNT-A) is an established treatment for overactive bladder (OAB). Although the FDA-approved standard regimen involves 20-injections, evidence suggests fewer injections may achieve comparable outcomes.
objectivesTo systematically review studies comparing periprocedural outcomes of reduced-injection versus standard 20-injection BoNT-A techniques for OAB. STUDY
designPubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from their inception through 6/11/2026. Eligible studies included women undergoing in-office bladder BoNT-A (100 U) for OAB. The intervention was a reduced number of injections and the comparator was the 20-injection protocol. Outcomes included efficacy, pain during injection, urinary tract infections (UTI), and retention. Abstracts and full-text articles were doubly screened; accepted articles were doubly extracted. Study quality was assessed using GRADE criteria, ROB2, and ROBIN-I. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool proportions and risk ratios.
resultsWe screened 4066 abstracts, 139 full-text papers were assessed, leaving 16 studies (eight RCTs and three retrospective cohort studies, four prospective cohort study, and one case series) with 1393 patients. Most outcomes were supported by low- to high-quality evidence. Mean follow-up was 8.7 ± 4.3 weeks, and the reduced-injection groups received a mean of 7.3 ± 2.8 injection sites. Meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in efficacy between reduced- and standard-injection protocols (79% (95% CI 0.66-0.89); p = 0.16). Pain scores were not different between the reduced-injection group and the standard-injection group (mean difference 0 (95% CI 0.36-0.34); p = 0.23)). UTI (16% (95% CI 0.12-0.21); p = 0.427) and urinary retention (4% (95% CI 0.02-0.06); p = 0.591) adverse events did not vary between groups.
conclusionsReduced-injection BoNT-A regimens provide efficacy and safety comparable to the 20-injection protocol, supporting a simplified approach to OAB treatment without compromising outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42627496What 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.