Evidence Hub

Comparison of Different Treatment Outcomes for Refractory Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Maria Patricia Rada, Răzvan Ciortea, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis, Andrei Mihai Măluţan, Carmen Elena Bucuri, Cristina Mihaela Ormindean, Viorela-Elena Suciu, Ionel Daniel Nati et al.

Toxins, 2025

2,645 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Refractory overactive bladder (OAB) poses a significant clinical burden, often severely impacting quality of life (QoL). While intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) and sacral neuromodulation (SNM) are established therapeutic options, a direct comparison of their efficacy and safety profiles is essential to guide clinical decision-making. This study compares BoNT-A against placebo and SNM for the management of refractory OAB in women. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched until February 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on treatment alternatives for refractory OAB. Treatment outcomes at 3- (BoNT-A vs. placebo) and 6-month (BoNT-A vs. SNM) follow-up were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively, with heterogeneity assessed via I2 test. Study quality was evaluated using CASP tools. Results: Pooled data from 12 studies (2645 patients) indicated that BoNT-A significantly reduced urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes compared to placebo (p = 0.02) and SNM (p = 0.0008). Additionally, a ≥75% reduction in UUI episodes was more likely with BoNT-A compared to both placebo (p < 0.00001) and SNM (p < 0.00001). Complete resolution of UUI was more likely with BoNT-A compared to placebo (p < 0.00001); however, when compared to SNM, the latter demonstrated a higher rate of complete UUI resolution (p…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,645 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free