Reply to Editorial Comment: Epidemiology and Treatments for Nonobstructive, Non-Neurogenic Underactive Bladder: A Systematic Literature Review

We appreciate the thoughtful editorial comment by Anis and Goldman1 highlighting the complexities surrounding the accurate identification and treatment of underactive bladder. This commentary underscores the very challenges our team encountered when conducting our systematic review2 on the topic, including inconsistent definitions, limited diagnostic clarity, and substantial gaps in the literature that hinder patient care and therapeutic progress. Our goal with this review was not only to synthesize the available evidence regarding UAB as a clinical condition but also to bring attention to the structural barriers in this field that we are seeking to address through continued research. We share the perspective that precise terminology and more rigorous phenotyping are critical steps toward improving outcomes. We look forward to contributing further to this conversation and to the evolving understanding of this often-overlooked condition.