Trial reportJournal of paediatrics and child health2026
Management of Monosymptomatic Nocturnal Enuresis in Children: A Pilot Randomised Control Trial of Body-Worn Versus Bell-and-Pad Alarm Device.
Trial report in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 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
aimTo compare bell-and-pad alarm therapy to body-worn alarm therapy for the management of monosymptomatic enuresis in children 6-16 years of age in Victoria, Australia.
methodA sample of 76 children with monosymptomatic enuresis were randomly allocated to a control group (bell-and-pad alarm, n = 38) or an experimental group (body-worn alarm, n = 38). All children were treated for 8 weeks. Children who had not been successful, defined as 14 consecutive dry nights, continued therapy up to 16 weeks. The two alarm types were compared using dichotomous cross-tabulations and chi-squared tests of independence based on the most positive outcome versus the other outcomes. The costs of the treatment were calculated from the service provider's and family's perspective. Costs were in 2023 Australian dollars.
resultsTreatment success was achieved in 22 children (68.7%) in the body-worn alarm group and 34 children (94.4%) in the routine (bell-and-pad) group (p = 0.010). The bell-and-pad alarm also performed better on three other indicators: Alarm used every night (p = 0.018), alarm woke parent (p = 0.011), and child was compliant with alarm use (p = 0.015). The body-worn treatment was found to be cheaper than the bell-and-pad treatment ($598 per child) but was not as effective.
conclusionThe success rates for treatment were high in both groups but the bell-and-pad alarm was found to be more effective than the body-worn alarm used in this study. Further research is recommended, with a larger population, to establish more definitive support for clinical decision making.
trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000354189.
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.